Bhardwaj Harshvadan Patel, Vadodara V. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3) Now Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

ITA 39/AHD/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1311 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 147; 69; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 39/Ahd/2024 (िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assess ment Year : 2011-12) Bh ar dw aj H ar sh va da n Pat el 20 1, A Bl oc k, J as p er Ho me s, Nr . Se ar s T ow ers , Va do dar a, G uj ara t, 39 00 15 बनाम बनामबनाम बनाम/ V s . IT O W ar d – 1( 2) (3) , No w W a rd – 1( 2) (1 ), Va do dar a ᭭थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./P A N / G IR N o . : A R H P P 4 0 3 4 D (Appellant) . . (Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Tej Shah, AR ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. DR D a t e o f H e a r i n g 20/06/2024 D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t 01/07/2024 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC), Delhi, (i n short ‘the CIT( A) ’) dated 11.08.2023 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. As per Registry, t here is a delay of 91 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining that the order of the Ld. C IT( A) was receive d b y hi m on 18.11.2023 and ITA No. 39/Ahd/2024 [Bhardwaj Harshvadan Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 – the ti me li mit fo r filing the appe al before the Tribunal was expiring on 18.01.2024. The appeal filed by the a ssessee on 09.01.2024 was, t herefore, within the li mitation period and there was no dela y. Further that there was change of Counsel during the period which led to this dela y. The R evenue has not raised any ob jection to the condonation of dela y. Considering the explanation of the assessee the delay is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that no return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 was filed by the assessee. The AO ha d initiated proceeding under Section 147 of the Inco me Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the basis of information that the assessee had jointly purchased an i mmovable p roperty of Rs.70 Lacs during the F.Y. 2010-11. There was no response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2018 and no co mpliance was made by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. The assess ment was co mpleted ex-parte under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26.12.2018 at total inco me of Rs.70,04,456/-. Additions of Rs.17,50,000/- on account of 1/4 t h share in the property purchased during the ye ar, Rs.50Lacs in respect of inve st ment in bonds/debentures and Rs.2,54,456/- in respect of co mmission income were made b y the AO. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was decided vide the impugned order. ITA No. 39/Ahd/2024 [Bhardwaj Harshvadan Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 – 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal is before us. 6. The assessee has t aken following grounds in this appeal: “1. The CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by the appellant and dismissing the same in limine without giving an opportunity to the assessee for presenting the sufficient cause that prevented the appeal being filed within the limitation period. 2. The CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of the AO in making addition of Rs. 70,04,456/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the act. 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of the AO in making addition of Rs. 2,54,456/- being unexplained commission income.” 7. Shri Te j Shah, th e Ld. AR of the assessee explained that there was a dela y of 314 da ys in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT( A) and that t he Ld. C IT( A) ha d dis missed the appeal of the assessee without considering the me r its of the c ase. He submitted that the reason for delay was explained in For m No.35 but the Ld. CIT( A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in li mine. According to the Ld. AR, no opportunity was given to the assessee in the course of appea l to explain the reason for delay. 8. Per contra, the Ld. S r. DR supported the order of Ld. CIT( A). ITA No. 39/Ahd/2024 [Bhardwaj Harshvadan Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 4 – 9. We have considered the rival sub mi ssions. It is found that there was a dela y of 314 da ys in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT( A). The asse ssee had explained the following reason for the delay in For m No.35: “ 1 . T h e a p p e l l a n t r e q u e s t f o r c o n d o n a t i o n o f d e l a y i n f i l i n g t h e a p p e a l b e f o r e y o u r h o n o u r . A c t u a l l y a l l t h e p a p e r s /d o c u m e n t s r e q u i r e d f o r f i l i n g t h e a p p e a l w a s h a n d e d o v e r t o th e n , A . R . T h e a p p e l l a n t t r u s t e d t h e t h e n A R f o r f i l i n g t h e a p p e a l. T h e a p p e l l a n t w a s u n d e r i m p r e s s i o n t h a t A R w o u l d h a v e f i l e d t h e ap p e a l w i t h i n p r e s c r i b e d t i m e l i m i t . Wh e n t h e a p p e l l a n t v i s i t e d th e o f f i c e o f t h e t h e n A . R . f o r c o l l e c t i n g t h e a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t f o r f il i n g t h e F o r m N o . 3 5 , i t c a m e t o t h e k n o w l e d g e o f t h e a p p e l l a n t fr o m o f f i c e s t a f f o f t h e t h e n A R t h a t a p p e a l i s f i l e d o r n o t i t c a m e t o k n o w a f t e r v e r i f i c a t i o n f r o m f i l e / r e c o r d s . 2 . O n v e r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e f i l e / r e c o r d s f r o m A R ' s o ff i c e , t h e s t a f f h a s c o n f i r m e d t h a t a p p e a l i s n o t f i l e d w i t h i n p r e s cr i b e d t i m e . A f t e r c a m e i n t o k n o w l e d g e t h a t a p p e a l h a s n o t b e e n f i l e d w i t h i n p r e s c r i b e d t i m e l i m i t n o w t h e a p p e l l a n t m o v e d t o f in d a n o t h e r c o n s u l t a n t f o r f i l i n g t h e a p p e a l . N o w , t h e u n d e r s i gn e d a p p e l l a n t h a s a p p o i n t e d t h e n e w A R o f A h e m a d a b a d b a s e a n d r e q u e s te d f o r c o n d o n a t i o n o f d e l a y . S i n c e t h e A R h a s t o c o l l e c t th e i n f o r m a t i o n , s t u d y t h e c a s e , & p r e p a r e t h e s u b m i s s i o n / r e l e v a n t do c u m e n t a t i o n , t h e d e l a y t a k e n p l a c e . T h e a p p e l l a n t p r a y s y o u r h o no u r t o a d m i t t h e a p p e a l u n d e r t h e p r i n c i p l e o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e a n d pe c u l i a r c i r c u m s t a n c e o f t h e c a s e . " 10. The Ld. CI T( A) had considered the sub mission of the assessee and observed that the assessee did not submit a for mal condonation petition seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit and docu mentar y evidences in support of the reasons stated at Column No.15 of For m No .35. ITA No. 39/Ahd/2024 [Bhardwaj Harshvadan Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 5 – 11. It is found from the order of the Ld. C IT( A) that no opportunity was a llowed by the Ld. CIT( A) to the assessee to explain the reason of delay nor was he ever asked to file an affidavit and the documentar y evidences. It is, thus, found that assessee was not a llowed an y opportunity to explain the dela y or to bring on record the supporting docu mentar y evidences for the reason of delay as explained in Form No.35. The appro ach of the Ld. CI T( A) to dismiss the appeal on the ground of dela y without allowing any opportunity to the assessee is not found fair and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. The ass essee has filed an affidavit before us wherein the reason for de la y before the Ld. CI T(A) has been explained in detail. We are of the considered opinion that the assessee has reasonably explained the reason for dela y i n filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 12. Since, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed b y the Ld. CIT( A) without allowing any opportunity of being heard, we dee m it proper to set aside the matte r to the file of the CIT( A) to decide the matter afresh on the meri ts of the case. A p aper book has also been filed before us in support of the grounds as raised on merits of the case. Since these evidences were not placed before the lower a uthorities at an y s tage, the matter r equires to be set aside for exa mination of these evidences. Accor dingly, the Ld. CI T (A) is di rected to exa mine the evidences filed b y the assessee, exa mine the me rits of the c ase and re-decide the matter after allowing a proper opportunity of being hea rd to the ITA No. 39/Ahd/2024 [Bhardwaj Harshvadan Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 6 – assessee. The ass essee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT( A) and in cas e of an y non-co mpliance by the assessee, the Ld. C IT( A) is fre e to decide the matter in the manner he dee ms fit. 13. In the result, appeal preferred b y the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced on 01/07/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 01/07/2024 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतआदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसारआदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप उपउप उप/सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकारसहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad