AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal is directed against the order dated 23.10.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)/NFAC"] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal which was not condoned.
The appellant is an individual who filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18. As per information available on record, it was found that the appellant had received accommodation entries in the nature of bogus purchase of shares amounting to Rs.1,11,60,750/- through known entry operators during Financial Year 2016–17. It was further observed that the appellant had carried out substantial transactions involving sale and purchase of immovable properties and sale of equity shares aggregating to Rs.10,87,17,270/-. Thus, the total transactions amounted to Rs.12,18,59,386/-, which also included declared Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.19,81,366/- in the return of income. Based on the above information, the case was reopened and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 04.07.2022. During the reassessment proceedings, various notices u/s 142(1) and a show-cause notice dated 09.05.2023 were issued. The appellant made only partial compliance to these notices. The Assessing Officer, not being satisfied with the explanation of the appellant, made additions of Rs.2,07,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and Rs.4,14,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 30.05.2023.
Aggrieved, the impugned Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the Id. CIT(A) who dismissed the same on the ground on delay and not decided the same on merit and the addition was upheld.
Aggrieved by the order of the Id. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before us and raises the following grounds of appeal:
1.That the proceedings U/s. 147 / 148A are without jurisdiction and bad in law.
2.That the impugned notice U/s. 148A(d) /148 is barred by limitation.
3.That the impugned notice U/s. 148 is bad in law as it is issued without DIN.
4.That in the absence of prior approval as required u/s. 151, the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction.
5.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on merits in not condoning the delay in filing appeal before him.
6.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the asstt. order is bad in law for non-issuance of notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act.
7.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, both the lower authorities erred in not providing reasonable opportunity of hearing.
8.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO and CIT(A) could not had made / sustained addition U/s. 68 for unexplained credits and unexplained expenditure U/s. 69C as no addition has been made on the issue which stand mentioned in order U/s. 148A(d).
9.That under the facts and circumstances of the case both lower authorities erred in law in making and sustaining addition of Rs. 2,07,00,000/- U/s. 68 as unexplained cash credit.
10.That under the facts and circumstances of the case both lower authorities erred in law in making and sustaining addition of Rs. 4,14,000/- U/s. 69C being alleged commission for obtaining accommodation entry.
11.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, no interest U/s. 234B should have been charged. In any, case the calculation are excessive."
We have heard the Id. AR and the Id. DR. The Id. AR at the very outset submitted that the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice because the Id. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay arbitrarily without considering the submissions made as there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on time. The assessee has filed condonation petition, before the Id. CIT(A), the contents of the same are extracted, as under:
"The impugned order dtd. 30.05.2023 has been passed u/s 147/144. The said order has not been received on registered e-mail as on the income tax portal. The said order has been purported to be sent on email id [email protected] which was earlier email id. The immediate previous notice dtd. 09.05.2023 had also been sent to this email id. The assessee in A.Y. 21-22 had changed its registered e-mail id to [email protected]. This fact is evident from screen shot of income tax portal in which this email id has been mentioned and it has also been mentioned that the last update of profile was on 27.01.2023. Further, ITR for A.Y. 2021-22 can be seen where this email id has been mentioned. No order has been served on this email id [email protected] thus, the assessee was unaware of any such order. It is only when the assessee CA logged in for filing ITR of A.Y. 2024-25 on 25.05.2024 it can to the assessee knowledge that some order U/s. 147 has been passed and immediately it took action for filing this appeal. However, for the purpose of appeal filing the date of order is taken as date of communication of order. Thus, the delay in filing appeal is un-intentional and for bonafide reasons. It is thus requested to condone the delay."
It is therefore submitted that the matter may be referred back to the Ld. CIT(A) where the assessee can move application alongwith affidavit for seeking relief as no notice has been received by the assessee.
The Ld. DR has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) stating that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is legally perfect. Therefore, Ld. DR requested for dismissal of the appeal filed by the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. We notice that since the assessee has failed to file an application for seeking condonation of delay either before the Ld. CIT(A) or before this Tribunal, hence the assessee needs to be given opportunity for seeking condonation of delay and for that purpose, the assessee has sought opportunity to file affidavit giving the detail reason for not appearance /compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). We are of the considered opinion that Ld. CIT(A) has not given effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee which is against the principle of natural justice. Section 250 sub section 2(a) of "the Act" which provides as under:
"Section 250 (2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal:
a. The appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;"
It is evident from the provision that the hearing to be given is not a formality but an effective hearing is sine qua non for the purpose of upholding the principal of natural justice. It is thus evident from the contents of the impugned order that no effective opportunity of hearing has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order.
For the above reasons, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable and resulted into miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the case to the file of Ld. CIT(A) who shall dispose the same on merit after giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appellant/assessee shall present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) within 60 days of this order for seeking condonation of delay for filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by filing detailed affidavit which will be considered as per law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.