Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
�नधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by Shri Krutarth Desai, AR & Ms Disha Kharod, CA राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal instituted on 01.08.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 20.12.2023 उ�घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of 20.12.2023 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “Ld. NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 26.05.2023 for assessment year 2011-12, which in turn arises from the addition made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 24.12.2018. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- “1) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment proceedings under the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act itself is bad in law and contrary to the settled position of law. The essential element to initiate reassessment proceedings is “reason to believe” and not “change of opinion”. Therefore, the reassessment itself (A.Y 13-14) Dimpal R Patel is bad in law and therefore, reassessment proceedings may please be quashed and set aside. 2) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs.1532000/- towards cash deposited in the bank account and therefore, the addition deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act to the tune of Rs.1000000/- is totally unwarranted and not within the four corners of law and therefore, the addition deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4) The appellant craves for leave to add or amend or alter or delete any of the grounds of.”
On perusal of record, it shows that present appeal is barred by just one day of the prescribed period of limitation for filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee prayed that delay of just one day was committed due to miscalculation of appeal period and the Ld. AR for the assessee has shown sufficient and bona fide cause for condonation of delay.
On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr-DR) for the Revenue has not opposed the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Considering the submission of both the parties and taking note of the fact that calculation of appeal period before the Tribunal. Thus, I find merits in the submission of Ld.AR for the assessee for condonation of delay, considering the fact that plea of assessee was circumstances situation. The delay in filing appeal is condoned and admitted for decision on merits. Now I will advert to discuss the merits to the appeal. (A.Y 13-14) Dimpal R Patel 5. Rival submissions of both the parties are heard and record perused. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer as well as NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) has not given reasonable and fair opportunities to the assessee. Though the Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s, 147of the Act, however, on perusal on para-6.6 of assessment order, it was clearly discernable that addition on account of cash deposit is made for the want of proper explanation and evidence. The NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer in ex parte proceedings by holding that assessee was given three opportunities and no response was made on the part of assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee is a semi-literate person and was not capable with technicality of e-mail and SMS automation procedure generated from ITBA portal. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee has good case on merit and will definitely succeed, if one more opportunity is given to the assessee to explain the facts and the issues/ additions are adjudicated on merit. The ld AR for the assessee further submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future and not to make any default for making such compliance. The ld AR for the assessee prayed for restoring the appeal to the file of Assessing Officer and to decide it afresh on merit. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue after going through the order of lower authorities and submission made by Ld. AR for the assessee, submits that as per para-4.2 of impugned order passed by NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) the assessee was given sufficient and reasonable 3