Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Assessee represented by Shri Ankit Rathi, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Institution of Appeal 08/05/2023 Date of hearing 01/08/2023 Date of pronouncement 01/08/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 24/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) erred in not passing speaking order on our appeal grounds and perfunctorily dismissing our appeal on tenuous and perverse grounds.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 20,61,800/- by treating the advance received for booing of flat as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3. That the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement or late any of the grounds stated hereinabove, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 2. Rival contentions of the learned representatives of the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the assessee could not make compliance before the ld. CIT(A) as the earlier counsel has not informed about various notices issued through ITBA portal. The assessee was not well-versed with the system of virtual hearing so he could not make proper compliance. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if the assessee is given one more opportunity to contest the case on merit. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the order of ld CIT(A) is not on merits and dismissed the appeal, simply by holding that no submissions was filed by the assessee. The order of ld CIT(A) is not on merit and mandate of section 250(6) of Income tax Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in attending the hearing and making due compliance of the notices of lower authorities. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submits that the assessee has casual in attending the hearing. The ld. CIT(A) has given more than seven opportunities, despite giving sufficient opportunity, no compliance was made. The assessee deserve no more opportunity.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record carefully. We find that the assessing officer while passing the assessment order made addition of Rs. 20,61,800/- under section 68 on account of unexplained cash credit in the assessment order dated 07/09/2021. Though, the assessee explained that credit in his bank account is for booking of flats and shops. Such explanation of assessee was not accepted by assessing officer. We find that the ld. CIT(A) passed the order in an ex parte proceeding. Before, us the ld. AR of the assessee explained that their consultant has not informed that and now the assessee will be more vigilant in making timely compliance before the First Appellate Authority. Considering the facts that substantial rights of the assessee is involve in the present appeal, thus, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, in our view the assessee deserve one more opportunity of hearing, therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merit afresh. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and to make timely compliance and file necessary evidence and not to seek adjournment without any