Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’ LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
Appellant by Shri Sanjay Saxena, C.A. Respondent by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing 16/05/2024 28/05/2024 Date of pronouncement O R D E R
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 wherein, the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed in limine for the reason of non compliance.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from house property and income from other sources. The assessee had e-filed his return of income on 12.09.2017 declaring total income at Rs.3,34,630/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) was issued and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act to the assessee requiring the assessee to submit the details of the case but assessee failed to submit his reply. Under these circumstances, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(1) of the Act and made addition of Rs.11,60,500 /-. u/s. 143(3) of the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, in spite of various opportunities, as enumerated in the appellate order, no response was forthcoming from the side of the assessee and the assessee’s appeal came to be dismissed in limine by the ld. First Appellate Authority.
Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. That the CIT (Appeals) passed ex-parte order ignoring the adjournment application and without giving proper opportunity of being heard, which is liable to be cancelled.
2. That the Id. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in Rs. 11,60,500/- as Unexplained Money deposited in bank account u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. That the Id. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in applying 60% Tax and surcharge as per section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as this rate was not applicable to A.Y. 2017-18 not it was to be applied as per facts and circumstance of the case. 4 The appellant reserves a right to add/alter/amend any ground of appeal at the time of its hearing.”
At the time of hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee requested the Bench for condoning the delay of only one day in filing the appeal, to which, ld. D.R. has no objection. Since the delay is very nominal i.e. for only one day, therefore, in the interest of justice, I condone the delay of one day and admit the appeal for hearing.
The Ld. A.R. prayed that the appeal may be restored to the Office of the Assessing Officer for the purposes of adjudication on merits.
The ld. D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal as requested by the ld. A.R..
I have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that there was complete non compliance on the part of the assessee during the course of first appellate proceedings. However, looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, I restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer (AO) with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case and I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the AO in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the AO shall be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on the material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 28/05/2024)