Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER
आदेश/O R D E R
PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: These three appeals are filed by assessee against the individual orders of Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of the assessment orders of the assessee for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-16, details of which are tabulated below:
Details Assessment Year Assessment Year Assessment Year 2012-13 2013-14 2015-16 Date of Filing 22/05/2013 26/09/2014 31/03/2017 Return Returned 5,25,926/- 7,23,260/- 2,18,900/- Income (Rs.) Section of 144 r.w.s. 147 144 r.w.s. 147 144 r.w.s. 147 Order to 438/Ahd/2024 Ramesh Jasubhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 2
Date of Order 05/12/2019 05/12/2019 05/12/2019 Assessed 1,33,70,560/- 1,75,74,500/- 76,62,000/- Income (Rs.) Nature of - Unexplained - Unexplained - Unexplained Additions investment in investment in investment in property at Mount property at immovable Abu (Rs.10,00,000) Bagodara property at Paldi - Unexplained cash (Rs.7,00,000) (Rs.34,10,300) payment for BMW - Unexplained cash - Unexplained cash Car (Rs.1,85,626) deposits with payment for - Unexplained cash HDFC Bank purchase of flat at deposit with HDFC (Rs.90,60,000) Satellite Bank (Rs.79,87,500) - Unexplained (Rs.6,76,000) - Unexplained investment in - Unexplained investment in immovable investment in flat immovable property at Bavla at Satellite property (Rs.67,60,000) (Rs.33,56,800) (Rs.36,71,500) Date of filing of Appeal 05-05-2021 14-09-2021 21-09-2021 with CIT(A) Delay in filing Appeal before CIT(A) as per 238 Days 612 Days 624 Days the order of CIT(A) Date of 27/09/2023 27/09/2023 27/09/2023 CIT(A) Order Delay in filing appeal 104 Days 104 Days 104 Days before Tribunal Facts of the case:-
The assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for the respective assessment years as tabulated above. Thereafter, based on the information received from the Investigation Wing of Income-tax Department in Ahmedabad, regarding tax evasion in the case of the assessee, proceedings u/s. 147 of the were initiated and notices u/s. 148 were issued. As the AO could not get any reply from the assessee, he issued letter, notices u/s 142(1) and also show cause notices. However, the show cause notices were returned to 438/Ahd/2024 Ramesh Jasubhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 3 un-served with the postal remark “Left”. All the notices were sent on the address given in the PAN card and also in the address given in the return of income filed till date. Since the notices were not complied with and the assessments involved were getting barred by limitation shortly, the AO completed the assessments ex-parte u/s. 144 of the Act, on the basis of data available on records.
The assessee filed appeals against the order of AO before CIT(A) who dismissed the appeals without condoning the delay stating that no sufficient cause has been attributed as prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(A) the assessee is in appeals before us with following grounds of appeal:
4.1 Following table combines and organises the common grounds of appeal across the three assessment years, allowing for a clear comparison and analysis. Ground Ground of Appeal A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. No. 2012-13 2013-14 2015
16. The Learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law and fact by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, ✓ ✓ ✓ 1 despite sufficient reasons filed along with the Appeal Form
35. The delay should be condoned, and the appeal admitted and adjudicated. The notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings are bad in law. The ✓ ✓ ✓ 2 impugned order passed by the AO is required to be quashed, and the additions made therein should be deleted in full. to 438/Ahd/2024 Ramesh Jasubhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 4
The AO erred in law and facts by Rs. Rs. Rs. making an addition for the 10,00,000 7,00,000 32,51,000 purchase of property as (Mount (Land) (Property) unexplained investment under Abu) 3 Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, and the said addition should be deleted while computing the total income. The AO erred in law and facts by Rs. Rs. Rs. making an addition for cash 1,85,626 90,60,000 6,76,000 deposits/payments under Section (Car (HDFC (Property) 4 68 or Section 69 of the Income Tax Purchase) Bank) Act, and the said addition should be deleted while computing the total income. The AO erred in law and facts by Rs. Rs. Rs. making an addition for investment 36,71,500 70,91,240 33,56,800 in property (and stamp duty) as unexplained investment under 5 Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, and the said addition should be deleted while computing the total income. The AO erred in law and facts by Rs. - - making an addition for cash 79,87,500 deposits under Section 68 of the (HDFC 6 Income Tax Act, and the said Bank) addition should be deleted while computing the total income. The assessee craves leave to add, ✓ ✓ ✓ 7 alter, or amend any grounds at or before the time of hearing.
We noted that there was a delay of 104 days in filing appeal before us. We also noted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay in respect of each assessment years along with the affidavit. We also noted the reasons for delay which are summarised below:
i. The assessee did not receive timely and proper communication of the orders passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to 438/Ahd/2024 Ramesh Jasubhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 5 ii. The assessee did not receive a hard copy of the orders, which further contributed to the delay. iii. Upon eventually learning about the orders, the assessee needed additional time to find new Chartered Accountants to handle the appeals, which caused further delay.
Before us the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the delay should be condoned as the assessee is physically handicapped and he is dependent on the third party for the purpose of all tax and other related matters. The AR also produced the Certificate of the Office of the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, certifying the fact that the assessee is physically handicapped.
The AR further stated that the main reason for not receiving notice even by e-mail was the notices and letter were sent on e-mail address “cahinal@gmail.com” which was registered with the Income Tax. He also stated that in the return of income the assessee had given his own e-mail address “ar.rajpatel@gmail.com” on which no email was received. The AR submitted a copy of grievance raised with the jurisdictional AO asking for the copies of assessment orders, along with the reply of the office of the Jurisdictional AO which sent the copies of orders to the assessee.
The Departmental Representative (DR), after considering the circumstances did not raise any objection to condone the delay and restore the matter to the AO.
We have considered the submissions made by the AR on behalf of the assessee and the facts presented in the case. The AR has provided an oral undertaking that the assessee will produce all necessary documents and fully to 438/Ahd/2024 Ramesh Jasubhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 6 cooperate with the AO in the fresh assessment proceedings. Given the circumstances and the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate not to delve into the merits of the issues raised in the present appeals. Instead, we conclude that it is just and proper to set aside the orders passed by the CIT(A) and restore the matters to the file of the AO.
Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) for the respective assessment years are hereby set aside. The matters are restored to the file of the AO with the direction to conduct fresh assessments. The AO is instructed to examine all the relevant facts and evidence and make a fresh assessment in accordance with the law. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the fresh assessment proceedings. The AR's undertaking on behalf of the assessee to produce all necessary documents before the AO to facilitate the decision on merits is duly noted. The AO is further directed to expedite the fresh assessment process and conclude it within a reasonable timeframe, ensuring that the assessee is provided with adequate opportunity to present his case.
The appeals are thus allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter is remitted back to the AO for a fresh adjudication. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/08 /2024 at Ahmedabad.