Vishwakarma Enterprises India P. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 19.12.2024, for Assessment Year 2012-13.

The appeal is time barred by 69 days. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 69 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

Shri Shyam Sunder Mangla, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.03.2019 was issued to the assessee on the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer (AO) that there were cash deposits of Rs.2,76,00,000/- from unverifiable sources in bank account of the assessee and the assessee has under reported receipts of Rs.1,41,322/-. The assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings or respond to the notices issued by the AO as at that time the assessee was involved in various technical issues. However, the assessee vide communication dated 18.12.2019 requested to treat original return of income filed u/s.139 of the Act as return of income in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act. The AO without considering the submissions of the assessee framed assessment u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act estimating GP @8%on total credits in the bank account amounting to Rs.3,25,66,150/- and also made addition of Rs.1,80,137/- under the head income from other sources. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26.12.2019, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Even before the CIT(A), the matter could not be represented properly as the director of the company Shri Ram Kumar Dhiman who was looking after affairs of the assessee company had died on 17.04.2024. No one else in the company was well aware of the business and the facts. The ld. Counsel for the assessee thus, prayed for an opportunity to present the facts before the AO and explain source of cash deposits in the bank account.

Per contra, Ms. Sudha Gupta representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

Both sides heard. Considering the fact that the case of the assessee could not represented before the AO or the CIT(A) properly, in the interest of justice I deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the AO for fresh assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

The assessee shall respond notice(s) served by the Assessing Officer, without fail.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.