R S TRADERS,UPLETA V. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 438/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves R S Traders appealing against an order from the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed an assessment order by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessment included an addition of Rs. 6,18,000 under Section 69A of the Act, related to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The appeal was initially delayed due to the health issues and eventual death of the assessee's representative, Ketanbhai, leading to an ex-parte decision by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay convincing and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26337 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL RANPURA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH (SMC), RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.438/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) R S Traders, Bhadar Road, Opp. Teen Kaman, Upleata-360490 Vs. The I.T.O., Ward 1(2)(2), Rajkot. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAJFR 2471 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent by Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 15/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./JCIT(A), [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 15/02/2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO”) u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 11/12/2019. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there is delay of 53 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to indifferent health of Ketanbhai, he could not reply/attend the proceedings after filing of appeal and therefore, the appellate proceedings finalized ex- ITA 438/Rjt/2024 R S Traders Vs ITO Page | 2 parte. It was given to understand that due to ill health Shri Ketanbhai passed away on 10/05/2021 and therefore, above stated order remains unattended after his death. The said appellate order was served to the tax consultant’s email address and the appellant was not aware about the above proceedings and outcome. The assessee was totally unaware about the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the assessee totally dependent on his tax consultant. Due to indifferent health and subsequent death, the case was not represented properly and ex -parte order has been passed, by learned CIT(A). Therefore, the learned Counsel contended that in the interest of justice, delay may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue has raised objection about condonation of delay and would submit that such delay should not be condoned on such flimsy ground. The assessee not deserve any leniency at this stage. Hence, the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the submissions of both the parties and have also gone through the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of delay. I find that the due to indifferent health of Ketanbhai, he could not reply/attend the proceedings after filing of appeal and therefore, the appellate proceedings finalized ex- parte. Due to ill health, Shri Ketanbhai passed away on 10/05/2021 and therefore, the impugned order remains unattended after his death. The said appellate order was served to the tax consultant’s email address and the assessee was not aware about the proceedings and outcome of the proceedings. The assessee was totally unaware about the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the assessee totally dependent on his tax consultant. Due to ITA 438/Rjt/2024 R S Traders Vs ITO Page | 3 indifferent health and subsequent death, the case was not represented properly and ex- parte order has been passed. The reasons given by the assessee are found to be convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in filing appeal, therefore, I condone the delay of 53 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On merit of the case, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order by making addition of Rs. 6,18,000/- under Section 69A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), on appeal before him, confirmed the action taken by the Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future in complying the notices issued by the lower authorities. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue has supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. I find that the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash deposit during demonetization period and the assessee has not explained the source of cash deposit properly. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. I find that both the lower authorities have passed their orders in ex- parte proceedings, therefore, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. I note that it is settled law that principles of ITA 438/Rjt/2024 R S Traders Vs ITO Page | 4 natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interests of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to take any adjournment without any valid reason. The assessee is also directed to submit all the documents, evidences and replies as soon as possible without any further delay. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. 8. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 15/10/2024 in the open court. Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot *Ranjan Ǒदनांक/ Date: 15/10/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "