AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2018-19.
Registry has pointed out a delay of 366 days in filing of this appeal. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed an affidavit alongwith an application for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under :-
5.During his tenure, Mr. Singhania oversaw all tax proceedings. He registered his personal email address ([email protected]) as the primary contact on the Income Tax portal. By doing so, he successfully intercepted all critical departmental communications and kept the Assessee's management completely in the dark regarding the status of several notices. Consequently, the notices issued during the assessment and first appeal proceedings were delivered to Mr. Singhania's email ID leading to the ex-parte assessment order and dismissal of appeal. These portal screenshots are annexed as Annexure-2.
6.The Assessee was thus deprived of the principles of natural justice on account of the actions of an individual who forged documents to pose as a CA and actively concealed statutory proceedings to cover up his financial misappropriation. Therefore, the Assessee has not been heard on merits before any authority to date, making the admission of this appeal and the condonation of delay vital to the interest of justice.
7.The delay in filing the accompanying appeal before the Tribunal is entirely unintentional. It occurred because the email containing the Impugned Order dated 25.03.2025 unfortunately landed in the spam folder of the Director's email ID and went unnoticed. This inadvertent oversight was further compounded by the fact that the Assessee's management was occupied with in considerable litigation before various forums arising directly from the actions of the erstwhile financial consultant against whom FIR has been lodged by the Assessee. A summary of these litigations is enclosed as Annexure-03.
8.The Assessee has not gained or not sought to gain from filing of a belated appeal, a refusal to condone the delay would cause irreparable hardship.
9.It is only upon receipt of Penalty Order u/s 270A dated 03.03.2026, enclosed herewith as Annexure-04 to this application that the Assessee was made aware of the pending action and took prompt action to engage counsel, collate documents and file the appeal.
Prayer
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:
a. Condone the delay of 34 days in filing the present appeal;
b. Admit the appeal and direct its disposal on merits;
c. Pass any such other order(s) as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice.
After going through the issue mentioned in the application we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The Ld. DR argued that matter may be decided on merit. The delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned and admitted for adjudication.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under :-
“1.The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in finalizing the assessment and appellate proceedings without appreciating that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from adequately representing its case.
2.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by sustaining an ad-hoc disallowance of 20% (amounting to Rs. 14,80,543/-) out of the total expenses claimed under the heads of Office, Uniform, and Traveling expenses.
3.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 42,58,936/- u/s 68 of the Act, treating the unsecured loan received from the Director, Mr. Amit Tiwari, as an unexplained cash credit.
4.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,25,485/- claimed on account of donations.
5.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty proceedings u/s 270A, 271B, and 271AAC of the Act, without appreciating that the Appellant's defaults were not deliberate but were induced by the fraudulent misrepresentations of erstwhile tax consultant, its erstwhile tax consultant.
6.That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds which are without prejudice to each other, before or at the time of hearing.
At the very outset the Ld. Counsel of the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is an exparte order because of the reasons that the assessee did not get an occasion to file its reply / papers/ details as it had some problem with its authorized representative. During proceedings before us Ld. Counsel of the assessee made prayer to the Bench that as the case has been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) exparte so keeping in view the natural justice the matter may kindly be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Per contra the Ld. DR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal on the basis of material available on record and, therefore, the arguments made by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee does not have any basis. The Ld. DR further relied on the order of the authorities below.
We have considered the findings given by the AO in the assessment order and by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order and we have also considered the arguments and prayers made by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. During proceedings before us. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the case exparte, therefore, in our considered view keeping in view the element of natural justice the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.