Mayur Dubey, Moradabad V. ACIT, Moradabad

ITA 887/DEL/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mayur Dubey against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which was passed ex parte due to the Assessee's non-compliance with notices. The Assessee was in judicial custody during the relevant period and claimed ignorance of the proceedings. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that despite the Assessee's non-compliance, the peculiar circumstances warranted a remand to ensure a fair hearing. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Assessee to cooperate in the renewed proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 116268 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 887/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mayur Dubey, C/o Chaurasia & Associates, C- 2302, ATS Advantage, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad. PAN: AFMPD8658L VersuS A.C.I.T., Moradabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Venkatesh Chaurasia, Ld. Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Jeetender Chand, Ld. Sr. DR Date of hearing : 15.12.2022 Date of order : 28.12.2022 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 14.03.2022, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short “Ld. Commissioner”), u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2017-18. ITA No. 887/Del/2022 2 2. In this case, the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act whereby an addition of Rs.1,52,26,500/- was made and added in the income of the Assessee. 2.1 The Assessee being aggrieved preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dated 14.03.2022 finding no response/compliance of notices as mentioned in paragraph No. 3 of the impugned order, decided the appeal of the Assessee as ex parte. Against the impugned order, the Assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Assessee claimed before us that the Assessee was in judicial custody from 03.11.2017 to 07.06.2019 in the case FIR No. 16/2015 PS EOW under section 409/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC and therefore, was not acquainted with the pendency of the assessment proceedings and/or the appellate proceedings before the ld. Commissioner and consequently did not participate in the said proceedings before the ld. Authorities below, hence the appeal of the Assessee may be allowed by remanding the case. ITA No. 887/Del/2022 3 3.1 On the contrary the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below, on the ground that the same does not suffers from any perversity, impropriety and/or illegality and therefore no interference is warranted. 4. We have given thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and observe that the Assessee was arrested on 03.11.2017 and vide bail order dated 07.06.2019 was released on bail and the assessment order was passed on 24.12.2019 and against the assessment order, the appeal was preferred before the ld. Commissioner on dated 20.01.2020 via e-filing and notices of the appellate proceedings were issued to the Assessee through ITBA Portal on dated 01.01.2021, 13.01.2021, 21.012.2021 and 28.02.2022, but the Assessee made no compliance. 4.1 On being asked by the Bench for non-compliance, the Assessee claimed that because the Assessee remained in jail for a long period and after returning from jail could not revive its mobile number and email as well, therefore, was unable to access the notices sent by the department through ITBA Portal. ITA No. 887/Del/2022 4 4.2 We observe that there is a huge time gap between returning of the Assessee from jail, passing of the assessment order, issuing of notices by the ld. Commissioner and passing of the impugned order, and therefore, the reason for non-compliance does not seems to be logical and plausible. Consequently the Assessee does not deserve any leniency for the latches. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, as the ld. Commissioner was not assisted properly and having no substantive material available before him to decide the issue involved in appeal before him, and therefore, for proper and just decision of the case, we deem it appropriate to remit the case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say, by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 4.3 We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to cooperate with the proceedings and to appear before the ld. Commissioner and to file the relevant documents, as and when would be required. In case of further default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency and the ld. Commissioner would be at liberty to decide the case on the basis of the material available before him and in accordance with law. ITA No. 887/Del/2022 5 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/12/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *aks/-