Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8879 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
01-02-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Next Hearing Date
31-01-2024
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Appeal Filed On
14-12-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1090/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kola Innovation Technologies Design LLP, No.13, 4 th Cross, Gowdara Colony, 1 st Main Road, RMV 2 nd Stage, Dollars Colony, Bangalore-560 094. PAN : AAQFK 1707 Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Syed Aslaf Nadeem Dasani, C.A Revenue by : Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 01.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2024 O R D E R PER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, New Delhi on 21/08/2023 in DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055289629(1) for the assessment year 2017-18 on the following grounds: ITA No.1090/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 6 “This Appeal, by the Assessee, is directed against the Order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 21St August 2023, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2017-2018. The Appellant has raised the followed grounds of appeal : On facts and in law, 1] Under the facts and circumstances of the case The Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex parte Order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2] Under the facts and circumstances of the case The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in confirming the Order of Assessment passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 31 The Appellant craves the permission to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2. The assessee filed application for 57 days delay in condonation of appeal vide Affidavit dated 14.12.2023. We have heard the rival submission of both the parties and after pursing of the materials placed before us and we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable and sufficient cause and the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. We accordingly condone the delay in filing the appeal after relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (198) 167 ITR 471. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income electronically for the assessment year 2017-18 declaring loss of Rs.58,90,605/-. The case was selected under CASS for scrutiny. Accordingly, statutory ITA No.1090/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 6 notices were issued to the assessee on different dates. However, the assessee did not comply with any of the notices. The AO noted that the assessee has shown the proprietor’s capital of Rs.29.00 crores and further noted that the assessee has filed return of income first time for the assessment year 2017-18. For want of compliances, the AO made addition of Rs.10% of the capital shown by the assessee and added u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act and completed the assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the assessee did not comply any of the notices issued by the CIT(A). Accordingly, the CIT(A) passed order on the basis of material available before him. 5. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT. 6. The ld.AR submitted that the authorized counsel for the assessee did not appear at the stage of assessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedings the assessee had some genuine medical problem which has been observed by the CIT(A) at para No.9 of his order. Before the FAA the assessee’s council did not represent the ITA No.1090/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 6 case. Therefore, the case was decided ex-parte at both the levels. He submitted that the entire transaction have been carried out through banking channel and the assessee has good case . The AO has made addition on adhoc basis is not correct as per law . The AO has accepted the 90% of the capital introduced by the assessee. He requested that if a chance is given to the assessee, and undertook to file all the requisite documents before the AO as required. 7. The ld.DR objected for sending back to the file to lower authorities because both the authorities have provided ample opportunities to the assessee. However, assessee has not complied with both the authorities accordingly the FAA has rightly dismissed the appeal after relying on various judgments. 8. Considering the rival contentions, we note that the assessee did not present his case before both the authorities below. The ld.AR submitted the reasons for not representing the case. It is also noted from the order of the FAA at para No.9 “the appellant has stated that “due to some severe health reason and set back in the business investments the appellant partners personally could not participate in the assessment proceedings” but it was not substantiated by the requisite documents. Considering the ITA No.1090/Bang/2023 Page 5 of 6 request made by the ld.AR of the assessee and in the interest of justice, we are remitting the issue back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The AO is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. The assessee is directed to produce the necessary documents for substantiating its case and to avoid unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. During the hearing it was proposed to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- for not appearing before both the authorities below and it was accepted by the ld. AR of the assessee, therefore the assessee is directed to produce the proof of payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to AO and update the email, mobile No. and address for communication. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 2 nd day of February, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Vice President Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated : 02.02.2024. Vms ITA No.1090/Bang/2023 Page 6 of 6 Copyto: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
