Dineshbhai Dhirbhai Sodvadiya, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Surat

ITA 109/SRT/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4667 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINOD KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RUSHI PAREKH
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JIDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.109/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Dineshbhai Dhirubhai Sodvadiya 36, Hariram Bapa Nagar, Society, Varachha Road, Surat-395006 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(2), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACRPS 0318 N (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ /Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Appellant by Shri Rushi Parekh, CA िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal instituted on 30.01.2024 सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing 05.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 05.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) /National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, “CIT(A)]” dated 30.05.2023 for assessment year 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.63,00,000/- treating unsecured loan taken as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 2 ITA No.109/SRT/2024 AY.15-16 Dineshbhai D Sodvadiya 2. That the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte order ono dt.30/05/2023 without considering details furnished during appeal proceedings. 3. That the addition of Rs.63,00,000/- may kindly be deleted. 4. That appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 3. At the outset, it is observed that this appeal is filed belatedly by 185 days from the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed affidavit praying for condonation of delay, wherein it is averred that there is a delay of 185 days in filing this appeal belatedly with Tribunal as the concerned consultant Dhiraj Singala has given the email id [e-mail] in Form-35. It is stated that the file was taken away from him and given to a new consultant, Shri Rashmikant Patel. However, notices were issued in the old email address and the order was also uploaded in ITBA portal and was sent in old email address. In December end, 2023, assessee came to know about the issue of notice for payment of outstanding demand dated 06.12.2023 and assessee approached to V.I.Rudalal & Co. who checked status of appeal proceedings and came to know that CIT(A) has already passed order on 30.05.2023. The assessee immediate steps to file this appeal with Tribunal, but there was already delay of 185 days in filing this appeal with Tribunal. It was submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. Hence, prayer was made to condone the 3 ITA No.109/SRT/2024 AY.15-16 Dineshbhai D Sodvadiya delay of 185 days. The Id. Sr. DR did not have serious objection if the delay of 185 days are condoned by Bench. We have considered the contention of both the parties, and we are of the considered view that the assessee has shown reasonable and sufficient cause for filing this appeal belatedly with ITAT by 185 days. We do not find any mala fide intention on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal belatedly and therefore, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 185 days and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed his return of income (in short, ‘ROI’) on 12.01.2016 declaring total income at Rs.2,50,090/-. Subsequently case was selected for limited scrutiny for “large investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income”. The case was subsequently converted to complete scrutiny to examine the new unsecured loan of Rs.73 lakh. The AO found that assessee had taken loan of Rs.50,00,000/- from Mrs. Paritaben Suhagiya based at USA and loan of Rs.13,00,000/- from his wife. Thereafter AO issued show-cause notice on 13.12.2017 which is in para-6.1 pages 3 and 4 of the assessment order. Regarding issuance of show-cause assessee replied on 26.12.2017 in para-6.2 in pages 5 and 6 of the assessment order. Therefore, AO added Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.13,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act for the reasons discussed in para 7 and 8 of the assessment 4 ITA No.109/SRT/2024 AY.15-16 Dineshbhai D Sodvadiya order. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) issued four notices fixing the hearings on 08.03.2021, 21.03.2022, 12.09.2022 and 26.05.2023. The assessee did not file any written submission nor evidence nor sought any adjournment in response to the above notices. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal of assessee for non-prosecution. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, Ld.AR of the assessee stated that the assessee appointed new Authorized Representative after passing of the assessment order. The previous consultant has filed Form-35 and given his e-mail address. Subsequently, a new counsel was appointed and his email address had been given. However, the notices were sent by the CIT(A) in the e-mail address of the previous consultant of the assessee. As a result, the assessee or his representative did not receive the notices and comply with the details called for by the CIT(A). In absence of reply from assessee, CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 30.05.2023 ex parte. He requested that one more opportunity may be given so that appellant would plead his case on merit. 5 ITA No.109/SRT/2024 AY.15-16 Dineshbhai D Sodvadiya 7. On the other hand, Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He stated that assessee has been negligent in pursuing the appeal before CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. The Ld. AR has argued that CIT(A) has passed order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunities of being heard to assessee. The notices were sent in the e-mail address of the previous consultant. The CIT(A) dismissed appeal by passing a cryptic order without discussing merits of the case. We find that impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is clearly violative of the express provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, which provides that the appellate orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decisions. The underlying rationale of the provision is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the appellate Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of Ld.AR for the assessee that the assessment order was confirmed by CIT(A) in an ex parte order, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to contest his case on merit. Considering all the facts and in the interest of justice, we 6 ITA No.109/SRT/2024 AY.15-16 Dineshbhai D Sodvadiya set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is directed to be vigilant and to furnish all details and explanation as needed by CIT(A) by not seeking adjournment without valid reason. With this direction, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 05/09/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) Æयाियक सदÖय/ Judicial Member ल े खा सदÖय/ Accountant Member स ू रत/Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 05/09/2024 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S आद े श कì ÿितिलिप अú े िषत / Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथê/ The Appellant  ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent  आयकर आय ु ĉ/ CIT  आयकर आय ु ĉ (अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, स ू रत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT  गाड ª फाईल/ Guard File // True Copy // By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, स ू रत