BHARATKUMAR DIPAK KUMAR JARIWALA L/H OF LATE KRISHNABEN BHARATKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT V. ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), SURAT

ITA 1028/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the legal heir of Late Krishnaben Bharatkumar Jariwala against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment under section 147 and making an addition of Rs. 31,49,514 on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account treated as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee also contested the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) for want of submission, as the notices were not received by the assessee due to an error in the email address used by the ITBA portal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470568 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 147; 148; 250; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1028/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year 2012-13) (Physical hearing) Late Krishnaben Bharatkumar Jariwala, Through Legal Heir Bharatkumar Dipak Kumar Jariwala, 4/420, Mapara Sheri, Begampura, Surat-395003. PAN No. AIGPJ 5726 J Vs. I.T.O., Ward 2(2)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri P M Jagasheth, C.A. Department represented by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.DR Appeal instituted on 04/10/2024 Date of hearing 06/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 28/01/2025 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 20/06/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 31,49,514/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank account treated as income from undisclosed sources. ITA No. 1028/Srt/2024 Late Krishnaben Bharatkumar Jariwala through L/H Bharatkumar Dipak Kumar Jariwala Vs ITO 2 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in initiating Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO. 5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned Members of the Tribunal may deem it proper. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee/appellant fairly submits that there is delay of 46 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 20/06/2024, however, this appeal is filed only on 04/10/2024, thus, there is delay of 46 days in filing appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the delay is not intentional nor deliberate. The appellant could not check ITBA Portal on day to day basis and on checking it in the first week of October, 2024, realized/ came to know that his appeal has already been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). The appellant immediately filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one opportunity is allowed to contest the case on merit. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the delay is not intentional nor deliberate and may be condoned and the matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for passing the assessment order afresh. The ld. AR of the ITA No. 1028/Srt/2024 Late Krishnaben Bharatkumar Jariwala through L/H Bharatkumar Dipak Kumar Jariwala Vs ITO 3 assessee/appellant submits that there is no inordinate delay and it may be condoned. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the Assessing Officer dismissed the appeal in ex parte proceeding without giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee while filing appeal, provided e-mail address [e-mail], however, on checking ITBA Portal, it was found that the notice under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) were issued on the e-mail [e-mail] thus, no notice was received by the assessee. Similarly, the impugned order was also not served through e-mail provided in Form-35. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of submission. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 31,49,514/- on account of cash and other credit in the bank account of assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) has passed order for want of submission. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer with liberty to file detailed written submission. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future in making compliance. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue has supported the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee was given ample opportunities by the Assessing Officer as well as by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed five opportunities as recorded in para 5 of impugned order. The ld. Sr.DR for the ITA No. 1028/Srt/2024 Late Krishnaben Bharatkumar Jariwala through L/H Bharatkumar Dipak Kumar Jariwala Vs ITO 4 revenue submits that the assessee deserve no further leniency. On the plea of condonation of delay, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that no reasonable explanation is offered by the assessee and delay may not be condoned. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. First we shall consider the plea of condonation of delay, we find that the assessee while filing appeal, provided e- mail address [e-mail] but the notices were sent on the e-mail [e-mail], so the assessee has not received any notice. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order in absence of any proper response, therefore, we condone the delay of 46 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Further considering the fact that the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order. The Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash/credit entries in the bank from undisclosed sources. Before us, the ld AR of the assessee undertook to make proper compliance before the Assessing Officer as and when called for. Therefore, we deem if appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order on merit, the Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and in making proper compliance and not to make any default in responding the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The assessee is also directed to file detailed written submissions as well as evidences to support his case. With this direction, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1028/Srt/2024 Late Krishnaben Bharatkumar Jariwala through L/H Bharatkumar Dipak Kumar Jariwala Vs ITO 5 5. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order announced in open court on 28th January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 28/01/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Surat "