Juhar vs Income Tax Officer

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vododara [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 12.06.2024, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

The appeal is time barred by 164 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 164 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

Shri Suraj Gupta, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submits that the assessee is a Charitable Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The assessee is undertaking programmes for development and welfare of special categories of people viz. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, minorities, disabled persons, street and neglected children, drug addicts, elders, slum dwellers, prison inmates, mentally ill persons, etc. The assessee’s return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO), in scrutiny assessment proceedings, made addition of Rs.19,15,282/- by disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and also made an adhoc addition of Rs.1,41,956/- treating the amount received as sponsorship fee for yearly ‘Nuakhai Event’ from a Public Sector Undertaking as contract receipt. The ld. Counsel submits that the AO passed the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act as there was no representation on behalf of the assessee during assessment proceedings. He contended that the notices issued by the AO were never served on the assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 24.12.2019, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. He thus prayed for granting an opportunity to the assessee to make submissions before the AO.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the Department submits that the assessee is recalcitrant. The assessee neither made submissions before the AO nor before the CIT(A), despite repeated notices. He thus prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. It is no more res integra that the provisions of section 250 of the Act do not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution. Under section 250 of the Act, the CIT(A) is mandated to dispose of the appeal by deciding the issues on merits. Further, the assessment order has also been passed in ex-parte proceedings. Considering facts of the case and in interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore this matter to the AO for denovo assessment after allowing reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.