AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 16.10.2024 arising out of assessment order dated 28.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1.Grounds of Appeal Manoj Aggarwal (“The Appellant") Assessment Year (“AY”) 2017-18 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"]/National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as “NFAC"] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ("the Act") for the A.Y. 2017-18 dated 16.10.2024 is illegal, bad in law, and in contravention of the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961(“the Act") and therefore the same deserves to be set aside.
2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ("the Act") for the A.Y. 2017-18 dated 16.10.2024 is illegal, bad in law as it was passed without providing due opportunity to the assessee thereby violating the principle of natural justice.
3.That on facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the order of Ld. Assessing officer (hereinafter referred to as "AO") dated 28.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessment order is barred by limitation, and was passed without jurisdiction and hence, invalid.
4.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in affirming the order of Ld. AO dated 28.12.2019 without appreciating that it was passed without jurisdiction, rendering it to be void-ab-intio.
5.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in affirming the order of Ld. AO dated 28.12.2019 without appreciating the fact that the notice under section 143(2) was issued by an officer which had no jurisdiction.
6.That on the facts and circumstances if the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act in violation of CBDT Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017.
7.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in affirming the addition of Rs. 94,86,500/- made by Ld. AO under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits.
8.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in affirming the order of Ld. AO without appreciating the fact that it was passed without considering the replies and documentary evidence filed by the assessee, thereby violates the principle of natural justice.
9.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in affirming the addition of Rs. 94,86,500/- made by the Ld. AO without appreciating the fact assessee is maintaining proper books of accounts and nothing adverse in the books of accounts was pointed out by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings.
10.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in affirming the addition ignoring the settled position of law that the transactions have been made as per the prudence of businessman which cannot be substituted by the learned AO's wisdom.
11.That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts of the case in affirming the additions made by the Ld. AO without appreciating that the additions were made merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
At the outset, we have noted that the Registry has identified the delay of 231 days in this case for filing of appeal. Justifying the delay, the appellant had submitted that due to mother’s illness and continuously engaged in insolvency and attachment proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal and Debts Recovery Tribunal, the appeal could not file in time. Thus, it was argued that the delay is not intentional. We are conscious that no litigant gains by delay its matter. The Ld. DR did not seriously object to the condonation of delay. Delay of 231 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Hon’ble Apex court decision in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted from the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) that the appellant was required to file documents in support of its claims which were not provided. We have noted from para-3 of the impugned order that the ld. CIT(A) had issued notices dated 16.03.2020, 19.01.2021, 04.11.2022, 29.07.2024, 05.08.2024, 20.08.2024, and 30.09.2024 which were not admittedly complied by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of sale of grocery items had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,50,060/- on 31.10.2017. Further, the case of the assessee was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny. Accordingly, the AO had issued notice u/s 143(2) dated 28.09.2018 which was served upon the assessee electronically as well as through speed post. It was noted from the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act that during the demonetization period w.e.f. 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 the appellant had deposited cash of Rs.1,38,87,500/- in different accounts. Without satisfactory explanation, the AO made the addition of Rs.94,86,500/-.
The ld. DR, Ms. Ankush Kalra, vehemently argued that the assessee had not complied with the statutory notices issued by the appellate authority compelling him to pass an ex-parte order and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
We note that the Ld. CIT(A) issued notices dated 16.03.2020, 19.01.2021, 04.11.2022, 29.07.2024, 05.08.2024, 20.08.2024, and 30.09.2024, calling for information and the assessee could not file any submission, details and documents. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. Counsel however requested for one last chance and assured that compliance would now be made. Be that as it may be, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remit the issues back to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the matter after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with all the statutory notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and any non-compliance shall be viewed adversely. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.