FAKRODDIN DAWAL PATEL,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LATUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1477/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 September 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay before dismissing the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh disposal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but the Assessing Officer made an addition of cash deposits for failure to explain the source. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and without providing an opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit
Hearing: 17.09.2024Pronounced: 18.09.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 15.05.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 18.07.2017 disclosing income of Rs.4,32,430/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 17.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.38,37,720/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of cash deposit of Rs.33,39,500/- made by the appellant with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State urban Cooperative Society credit Ltd. for the failure of the appellant to explain the source of the said cash deposit.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay in filing the appeal.

4.

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

5.

When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative.

6.

I heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The solitary issue in the present appeal is whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. I had carefully perused the impugned order and find that there is nothing in the impugned order to show that the appellant was given opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that in order to meet the ends of justice, the matter requires remission to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh on the issue of delay after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

7.

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

Order pronounced on this 18th day of September, 2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →