Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [ in short Ld. CIT(A] in appeal DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034593179(1), dated
03/08/2021 arising out of the order passed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the AY 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of running training centers, programmes etc. In the case of the assessee a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on the assessee calling for the return of income for the AY 2017-18. Since there was no response from the assessee, another notice U/s. 142(1) was issued through ITBA portal and a copy was also served on the assessee by affixture on 26/02/2018. Subsequently, considering the assessee’s no response, another notice U/s. 142(1) along with annexures called for certain information was sent through ITBA on 26/08/2019. Thereafter, since there was no response, as per the information available under insight modules the Ld. AO noted that the assessee company made certain cash deposits in its bank accounts during demonetization period aggregating to Rs. 21,77,500/-. The Ld. AO further noted on analysis of three bank accounts of the assesseeie., ICICI Bank, SBI and Indusind Bank, there are total credits aggregating to Rs. 1,84,09,396/-. As there was no response from the assessee, the Ld. AO completed the assessment U/s. 144 of the Act vide his order dated 14/10/2019 wherein the assessee’s income estimated @ 8% of the total credits in the bank accounts of the assessee which works out to Rs. 14,72,751/- and also made an addition of Rs. 21,77,500/- and taxed the same as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 206 days. Before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee filed submissions seeking condonation of delay wherein it was stated that since the assessee’s office was shifted to a new location, the assessee could not get any communication pertaining to the assessment proceedings and therefore there was a delay of 206 days and the same may be condoned. On perusal of the assessee’s submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the reasons adduced by the assessee do not constitute any sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
The assessee has raised eight grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:- “1. For that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.
For that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal without considering the submissions made by the Assessee.
For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits.
For that the Ld. CIT(A) by not adjudicating the issue on merits erred in confirming the addition made by the AO in income estimated @ 8% of the total credits in the bank accounts to an extent of Rs. 14,72,751/-.
For that the Ld. CIT(A) by not adjudicating the issue on merits erred in confirming the addition made by the AO in adding unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act amounting to Rs. 21,77,500/-.
For that the Ld. CIT(A) by not adjudicating the issue on merits erred in confirming the levy of penalty by the AO u/s. 234A of the Act.
For that the Ld. CIT(A) by not adjudicating the issue on merits erred in confirming the levy of penalty by the AO u/s. 234B of the Act.
For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] taxmann.com 1072 (SC) in giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issue on merits.”
At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] submitted before us that though the assessee has explained the reasons for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit, the Ld. CIT (A) did not consider them and has passed the order without condoning the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld CIT (A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that the onus is on the assessee to give sufficient and reasonable cause for each day’s delay which lacks in the case of the assessee. Therefore the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to pass the order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, we find that the submissions of the Ld. ARrequires consideration. It is apparent from the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities the assessee company had shifted to a new place ie., H.N. LIG 958, Opp. State Bank of India, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has also explained that they are not aware of the ITBA proceedings and therefore they could not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. AO and also it took time to respond against the order of the Ld. AO. In our view, considering these facts, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the case on merits. In this situation, we find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. Therefore, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR, following the principles of natural justice, we hereby condone the delay of 206 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order
in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on the 22nd August, 2022. (दुव्िूरुआर.एऱरेड्डी) (एसबाऱाकृष्णन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) न्याययकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखासदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 22.08.2022 OKK - SPS आदेशकीप्रतिलिपिअग्रेपिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- ननधधाररती/ The Assessee–M/s. Chaitanya Learning Zone Pvt Ltd., Flat
No.8, 1st Floor, NV Plaza, Sai Baba Temple Road, Dwarakapuri, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh-500082. रधजस्व/The 2. Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, आयकरआयुक्त ( अऩीऱ)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. ववभधगीयप्रनतननधध, आयकरअऩीऱीयअधधकरण, ववशधखधऩटणम/
DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam गधर्ाफ़धईऱ / Guard file 6. आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam