Sanjeev Harshadrai Sheth, Vadodara V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara

ITA 180/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjeev Harshadrai Sheth, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which upheld the Assessing Officer's decision under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 17,10,000 to the appellant's income, citing unexplained deposits in the bank account. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 68 days in filing, which the appellant attributed to not receiving any notice of the assessment order. The ITAT found the appellant's reasons for the delay justifiable and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299921 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 44AD; 142(1); 143(2); 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I .T .A . N o . 1 8 0/ A h d /2 0 23 ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 16- 17 ) Sa n j ee v H ar s h a dr ai S h et h 36/ 2 / 17 , A b h i sh ek C o mp le x , GI D C M a i n R o a d, Ma ka r p u r a Va do dar a-39 0 0 10 V s . I nc o me Ta x O f f ic er , War d - 1 ( 2) ( 5 ) , B ar od a [ P AN N o. A H NP S 2 40 2G ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sakar Sharma, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. D.R. D a t e of H ea r i ng 15.05.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 24.05.2023 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 21.02.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The Ld. NFAC erred on facts and in law in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal despite explaining the reasons and no adjudicating the Grounds of Appeal on merits. 2. The Ld. NFAC erred on facts and in law in upholding action of Assessing Officer in making assessment u/s 144. 3. The Ld. NFAC erred on facts and in law in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 17,10,000/- on account of credits appearing in the bank account ignoring that the appellant furnished return u/s 44AD of the Act and therefore, such credits had already been part of the sales turnover disclosed in the return of income.” 3. Return of Income for A.Y. 2016-17 was filed on 13.07.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 3,17,650/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason that whether the investment and income relating to securities transactions are duly disclosed. Notice under Section 143(2) and ITA No. 180/Ahd/2023 Sanjeev Harshadrai Sheth vs. ITO Asst.Year–2016-17 - 2 - notice under Section 142(1) alongwith questionnaire was issued to the assessee. However, the Assessee did not respond to any of the notices, therefore, the Assessing officer passes assessment order under Section 144 thereby making addition of Rs. 17,10,000/- towards unexplained deposit to bank account. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal of the assessee on the ground that there is a delay 68 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that at the time of recovery proceedings the assessee came to know about the assessment order dated 11.12.2018. The Ld. A.R. submitted that no notice was received by the assessee at any point of time. The Ld. A.R. submitted that without taking cognizance of the assessee’s difficulty that the income tax practitioner who has given his email id has not given the notice to the assessee and without any knowledge of the income tax notices the assessee was genuinely not represented his case before the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) was not right in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. 6. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of the genuine reason of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the time limit before the CIT(A). The reason given by the assessee is justifiable ITA No. 180/Ahd/2023 Sanjeev Harshadrai Sheth vs. ITO Asst.Year–2016-17 - 3 - and appears to be genuine. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned. In the interest of justice it will be appropriate to remand back the issues contested by the assessee before the CIT(A) to the file of the CIT(A) for taking cognizance of the same on merit and adjudicate the same and decide the issues contested therein on merit after taking into account the evidences submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. 8. In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 24/05/2023 Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 24/05/2023 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/ Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad