DHARMENDRA SUMATICHANDRA SHETH, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1703/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 December 2024AY 2020-21Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and without addressing the merits. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter for de novo assessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 28-day delay. The assessee claimed they did not receive hearing notices and had a sufficient cause for the delay. The CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to delay without condoning it and without deciding the substantive grounds of appeal. Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Rutvij Patel, AR
Hearing: 03.12.2024Pronounced: 06.12.2024

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dharmendra Sumatichandra DCIT, Vs. Sheth HUF, Circle 2(1)(1), 507, Abhishree Avenue, Opp. Ahmedabad Hanuman Temple, Nr. Nehrunagar Cross Road, Ahmedabad [PAN : AAEHD 7962 G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rutvij Patel, AR Respondent by: Adjournment application filed Date of Hearing 03.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 06.12.2024 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 30.07.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “[A] Dismissal of appeal by not condoning the delay.

1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by deciding the appeal ex- parte especially when the appellant was not served with the hearing notice dated 24/07/2024 on email and thus, the appellant was deprived of the opportunity of being heard. Dharmendra Sumatichandra Sheth HUF Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 2–

2.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the mere delay of 28 days in filing the appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal in limine.

3.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay especially when the delay was not caused in order to delay the proceedings. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay especially when sufficient cause had arisen which had caused meager delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay especially when the case of the appellant was meritorious but the appellant was not provided an opportunity of being heard before the Ld. A. O. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay especially when the case of the appellant was meritorious but the appellant was not provided an opportunity of being heard before the Ld. A. Ο. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay especially when the assessee was always provided less than seven days' time, in violation of the SOP for faceless assessment, to respond to the show cause notice issued by the Ld. Department. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not deciding the issue of the "Addition u/s. 68 read with sec. 115BВЕ towards unexplained credit in the form of unsecured loan Rs. 95,00,000/-" on merits & on the grounds of appeal

raised before the Ld. CIT(A) and by not setting aside the addition made by the Ld. A. O.

9. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not deciding the issue of the "Addition u/s. 68 read with sec. 115BBE towards unexplained credit in the form of sundry creditors of Rs. 2,39,68,046/-" on merits & on the grounds of appeal raised before the Ld. CIT(A) and by not setting aside the addition made by the Ld. A. O.”

3. In this case, the Assessment order has been passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department on 25.09.2022 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,34,68,046/-, against the returned income of Rs.(-) 5,88,84,943/-, by making additions of Rs.2,39,68,046/- on account of Dharmendra Sumatichandra Sheth HUF Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 3– Sundry Creditors and Rs. 95,00,000/- towards Loan Creditors u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, on grounds of limitation, without dealing with the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merit.

5. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

6. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 28 days in filing of the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee and also the assessee has not received the show-cause notice from the AO. The ld. AR prayed that given an opportunity due compliance will be made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Having gone through the record before us, we find that the prayer of the ld. AR can be considered. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is referred to the Assessing Officer for initiation of the assessment proceedings de novo.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →