What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the NFAC's order was ex parte and the assessee was not properly heard, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The assessee, a partnership firm, filed a return declaring a loss. The Assessing Officer made additions to the total income due to unexplained cash deposits. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order of the NFAC was justified and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case.

Indira Bharatgas Agency, Nanded vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare

For Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Aaradhi

Hearing: 09.10.2024Pronounced: 09.10.2024

This is an appeal filed by the appellant directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.10.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of distribution of LPG Gas. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 15.11.2017 declaring loss of Rs.5,60,336/- Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 28.11.2019 passed u/s.143(3) at a total income of Rs.32,00,000/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of cash deposits made with the Central Bank of India of Rs.20,00,000/- on 13.11.2016 and Rs.12,00,000/- on 11.11.2016 on the failure of the appellant to explain the source of the cash deposits.

Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was filed before the NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal ex parte.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

At the outset, I find the appeal is time barred by limitation by 269 days. The appellant had filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of service of the order of the NFAC on e-mail id of the Accountant Mr. Pandurang Bhalke ,who left the services of the firm and the appellant came to know of the order passed by the NFAC only in the month of July, 2023 while the account was logged in for filing the return of income on Income-tax portal. Thus, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

The ld. SR. DR vehemently opposed the submissions made with regard to condonation of delay.

Having gone through the averments made in the affidavit for condonation of delay, I find this is a fit case to condone the delay as there is no material to contrary to disbelieve the averments. I therefore condone the delay of 269 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

I heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On merits, I find that the impugned order by the NFAC is an ex parte one in the absence of the appellant. It was stated before me that the hearing notices were issued through e-mail id of the Accountant which were not brought to the notice of the appellant. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant be given one more opportunity to explain the case properly.

The ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection for remanding the matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I set aside the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 09th day of October, 2024.

INDIRA BHARATGAS AGENCY,NANDED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, NANDED

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments