AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. NFAC)”] vide order dated 08-07-2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 arising out the assessment order dated 25-12-2019 u/s.147 r.w.s. of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (in short ‘the Act’).
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed the return of income for A.Y.2012-13. On the basis of information received from the government agency that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.54,86,000/- in his bank account. The assessee did not file any reply. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued after obtaining the prior approval from the Competent authority. The assessing officer completed the assessment after making the additions of Rs.42,35,000/- of unexplained cash deposit and Rs.30,422/- of the interest income.
Aggrieved the order of the ld. AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 08-07-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal:
1.That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and facts in dismissing the appellant’s appeal ex-parte without effective opportunity of being heard thereby violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law.
2.That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to apricate that the appellant never received any physical notice of hearing and had no actual knowledge of appellate proceedings as all communications were made through the on -line portal access to which the appellate was unaware.
3.That the Learned authorities failed to consider that the appellant is a matric pass has no technical or computer knowledge and was incapable of accessing or understanding electronic notices, compliances and appellate procedures under the Income-tax Act.
4.The learned CIT(A) erred ignoring the fact that the appellant had engaged a Chartered Accountant as authorized representative who negligently failed to follow up the appeal proceedings inform the appellant of hearing or represent the case effectively for reasons beyond the appellants, control.
5.The Ld. CIT(A) failed to apricate that the alleged non-appearance and non-compliance were neither wilful nor deliberate but occurred solely due to lack of technical knowledge dependence on professional advice and absence of any physical intimation of hearing.
6.The learned authorities erred in confirming penalty under section 271(1)(C) without establishing any conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and without disproving the bonafide explanation offered by the appellant regarding the source of funds.
7.The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the assessment was completed under section 144 read with section 147 due to alleged non-compliance and the penalty under section 271(1)( C) cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a best judgement assessment.
8.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating that the impugned transactions were duly explained as amounts received from the appellants father and proceeds from sale of property and therefore no adverse inference warranting penalty could be drawn.
9.That the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is non-speaking mechanical and devoid of proper reasoning as it does not deal with the facts, evidences, explanations and grounds raised by the appellant and hence is liable to be set-aside.
10.That the learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the penalty levied is grossly disproportionate arbitrary and excessive in relation to the nature of the transactions and the facts of the case thereby rendering the penalty order unreasonable harsh and contrary to the principles of proportionality and fairness enshrined under the Income-tax Act and Article 14 Of the Constitution of India.
11.The appellant craves leave to add alter amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.
The assessee submitted that the opportunity of being heard was not provided by the lower authorities. The Learned authorized representative for Department of Revenue submitted that departmental authorities have passed reasoned orders. He also submitted that the assessee has not taken part in the proceedings before the lower authorities. The appeal was rightly rejected by the Ld. NFAC.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by Lower authorities, the assessee did not file his submissions, for which the Assessing officer completed the assessment and appeal was also dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. NFAC.
Since in the instant case the assesse has failed to file his submission after availing the various opportunity. The assessee did not appear before the lower authorities. The ld. AO framed the assessment and Ld. NFAC also dismissed for non-prosecution. The appeal should have been decided on merit as per the provision of the section 250 of the Act. The appeal was decided ex-parte without giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. Assessing officer and co-operate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.