Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Ys. 2011-12 Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(4), 542, Johi Naharia, Kanpur Transport Nagar, Kanpur. PAN AHBPD 8682R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None present for the assessee Respondent by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT( DR) Date of hearing 16/05/2024 Date of pronouncement 28/05/2024 O R D E R
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 15.11.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 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 carrying on business of transportation in his personal name. The return of income had been filed on 31.12.2011 declaring total income of Rs.1,76,657/-. The Assessing Officer passed the ex-parte assessment order u/s. 144/ 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) on a taxable income of Rs.32,54,100/- due to non compliance to notices u/s. 148 and 142(1) of the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed as unadmitted on account of delay in filing the appeal.
Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the action of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte and dismissing the appeal for the delay in filing.
2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition o ₹32,54,100/- made by the AO for the cash deposited in the bank account. The addition is unjustified and needs to be deleted.
3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend o withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal before or a the time of hearing.”
5. None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any adjournment request from the side of the assessee. Therefore, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex- parte qua the assessee.
Since the order passed by NFAC was an ex-parte order, the ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the NFAC.
I have heard the ld. Senior Departmental Representative 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 NFAC with the direction to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC and also direct the NFAC to consider the explanation furnished by the assessee and if such explanation is plausible, hear the appeal on merits of the case. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the NFAC in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the NFAC shall be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on 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)