Sheetal Sandeep Meher, JALGAON V. ITO, Ward1(2), , JALGAON

ITA 1000/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0507 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Competent authority; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1000/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sheetal Sandeep Meher, 3rd Floor, Pitruchaya Building, Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon- 425001. PAN : AQUPM5982D Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jalgaon. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by Ld CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The present appeal is filed belatedly i.e. with the delay of 13 days. The appellant furnished an affidavit praying for condonation of delay in the circumstances mentioned therein. Assessee by : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue by : Shri Umashankar Prasad Date of hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of pronouncement : 31.07.2024 ITA No.1000/PUN/2024 2 3. The ld. Sr. DR had not controverted the averments made in the above affidavit. We are of the considered opinion that the reason mentioned in the affidavit constitutes reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed time. In the circumstances, the delay of 13 days is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on an ex- parte basis without issuing the notice of hearing dated 19.02.2024 on the official email id reflected on income tax portal as well as Form 35 for communication i.e. [e-mail] and instead, issuing the notice on a different email id i.e. [e-mail] and thus, the said appellate order passed without granting proper opportunity of being heard, may be declared as null and void in law. 2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.5,78,170 made by the A.O. in the asst. order passed u/s 147 without appreciating that the reasons recorded for reopening did not justify issuance of notice u/s 148 for A.Y.2013 - 14 and therefore, the said asst. order ought to have been declared as bad in law. 3. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.5,78,170 made by the A.O. in the asst. order passed u/s 147 without appreciating that the approval u/s 151 was granted in a technical manner without application of mind and hence, the notice u/s 148 for A.Y.2013 - 14 itself was bad in law and therefore, the said asst. order u/s 147 ought to have been declared as null and void in law. 4. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the A.O. merely on the basis of information received from Inv. Wing without any independent verification and independent application of mind and therefore, ITA No.1000/PUN/2024 3 the notice u/s 148 for A.Y.2013 - 14 itself was illegal and therefore, the asst. order u/s 147 ought to have been declared as bad in law. 5. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.5,78,170 made by the A.O. in the asst. order passed u/s 147 without appreciating that the relevant material relied upon by the A.O. for reopening the case was never confronted to the appellant till the completion of the asst. proceedings and hence, the said additions made in the asst. order u/s 147 were not justified in law. 6. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.5,78,170 made by the A.O. in the asst. order passed u/s 147 without appreciating that the said additions were not justified on merits and therefore, the same ought to have deleted. 7. The appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual furnished its return disclosing income of Rs.2,45,640/- on 31-07-2013. On the basis of certain information gathered in the case of other assessee’s it was discovered that the present assessee is involved in penny stock transactions & shown some exempted income u/s 10(38) of the IT Act from bogus long term capital gain. After recording reasons & prior approval from competent authority, notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee requiring him to furnish return of income. The assessee furnished its return of income & made compliance to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. ITA No.1000/PUN/2024 4 However, the AO remained unsatisfied with the reply of the assessee & completed the reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs.8,23,810/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.2,45,640/-. The AO charged tax @ 30% as per provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act on the income of Rs.5,78,170/- & also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act vide order dated 26-09-2021. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order the assessee preferred first appeal before LD CIT(A)/NFAC. 6. Since the assessee remained absent, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. AR submitted before us that the ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is bad in law. Ld. AR further submitted that the notices of hearing were sent by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the email id i.e. [e-mail] whereas the official email id mentioned in the ITBA portal as well as on Form 35 was [e-mail] and, therefore, the assessee remained unaware from the dates of hearing provided by ld. ITA No.1000/PUN/2024 5 CIT(A)/NFAC. Under the above circumstances, the counsel of the assessee requested before the bench that one more opportunity may kindly be allowed to the assessee so that she can substantiate her case before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 9. We have heard ld. Counsel from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find force in the arguments of the ld. Counsel of the assessee that the notices were sent on some other email id which was not in use and therefore, there was reasonable cause in not appearing before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Under the above facts and in the circumstances of the case, without going into merits of the case as well as in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with direction to decide the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall pass the order as per facts and law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notice issued ITA No.1000/PUN/2024 6 by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and submit the requisite details on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31 st day of July, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (G. D. PADMAHSHALI) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 31 st July, 2024. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.