Rajiv Kumar Arora vs ITO

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 09.12.2019 arising from the assessment order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from investments in shares, commodities and interest income. Assessee had not file the return of income for A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of the ITS Data that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.1,32,54,055/- in his bank statement with IDBI Bank, and that the assessee has made share transactions of Rs.1,30,42,275/-. In absence of response from the assessee, the AO passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 dated 11.12.2019 determining total income at Rs. 1,33,19,369/- by making addition of Rs. 1,32,54,055/- u/s 69A and Rs. 65,314/- as business income.

The ld AR explained before us that the Notice u/s 148 and all subsequent notices were sent to the address of the assessee at 19144-A, Plot No. 25, West Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, which was sold by the assessee in June 2011. Further, the assessee’s PAN was not registered on the Income-tax e-filing portal. The correct address of the assessee was C-201, Shreepati 4, Royal Complex, Poonam Sagar, Mira Road, Thane, Maharashtra – 401107. The assessee was completely unaware of the re-assessment proceedings as no notice was served upon him and the electronic notices were inaccessible due to non registration of PAN on the portal, hence the AO passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147. In May 2024, the appellant received intimation from HDFC Bank regarding attachment of his bank account pursuant to notice of recovery issued by the Income-tax Department. The appellant immediately visited the Income-tax Office and obtained a certified copy of the assessment order on 24.05.2024. Thereafter, he promptly filed appeal before the CIT(A) on 17.06.2024. The learned CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine for delay of about 54 months holding that no sufficient cause was shown, and also dismissed the appeal on merits without considering the documents furnished by the appellant. The assessee submitted that the delay in filing appeal before the CIT (A) was neither deliberate nor intentional and was solely on account of non-service of notices and lack of knowledge of the assessment order and prayed for remanding the case to the file of the CIT(A).

Per contra, learned DR did not raise any objection.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order on account of non-representation from the side of the assessee. In view of the same, we condone the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A), relying on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan V M Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123. In such facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view, in the interest of natural justice, that the issue be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide adequate opportunities to the assessee to present its case. The assessee is likewise directed to avail the opportunities and submit requisite documents as and when required by the CIT(A).

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.