Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 26.01.2024 for the assessment year 2013-14.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and no return of income was filed under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. The case was reopened by way of notice u/s.148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO), on the basis of information available with him, noticed that the assessee had purchased an immovable property at Rs.35,00,000/- on 25.04.2012 and sold it for Rs.85,28,000/- on 20.12.2012. In the absence of any compliances from the assessee, the AO vide his order u/s.147 r.w.s.144 dated 31.08.2021 made addition of Rs.50,28,000/- treating the same as unexplained source of investment u/s.69 of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was before the CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of 179 days. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material on record, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the appellant.
Heard the ld. DR and perused the material on record. The assessee in the written submissions filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC had stated that the tax consultant did not pursue his case despite furnishing relevant documents. Failure of the tax consultant resulted in passing of the ex parte orders. Therefore, the assessee prayed that delay in filing be condoned as the same was not intentional. It is an admitted position that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the appellant in limine without condoning the delay. He did not delve into the merits of the issue. In our considered opinion, considering the submissions filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC, the CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay. In the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice. We therefore condone the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for remand of the matter to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication of the issues on merit in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 14th day of May, 2024.