SHRI ABHISHEK BIJALBHAI KALOTRA,BALDANA, GUJARAT V. THE ITO WARD-1, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

ITA 392/RJT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Abhishek Bijalbhai Kalotra against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed an addition of Rs. 15,23,320 on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially delayed due to the assessee's rural background and reliance on a local tax consultant, leading to procedural neglect. The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural error and the assessee's lack of opportunity to contest the additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 144 and 147 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 27166 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: KAUSHALI SHAH; LD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 144; 250; 271(1)(c); 69; 234B

Judgement Text

" ITANo.392/RJT/2023 Abhishek Bijalbhai Kalotra आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,राजकोट Ûयायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 392/RJT/2023 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year: (2011-12) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Kaushali shah, Ld. AR व कȧ Ĥ×यथȸ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. (DR) सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 25 / 11/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the assessee, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)’], dated 24.03.2023, u/s 147 r.w.s 144 Abhishek Bjalbhai Kalotra, 1118 Pagivashthanvupruu, Baldana – 2, Gujarat - 363421 Vs. ITO, Ward – 1, Opp. Mela Medan, Surendranagar èथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ARZPK2585N (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) ITANo.392/RJT/2023 Abhishek Bijalbhai Kalotra of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 26.11.2018 for Assessment Year 2011-12. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are follows: “1.The order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of I.T. Act is bad in law and deserves to be uncalled for. 2.The assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making the addition on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act of Rs. 15,23,320/-. The same deserves to be deleted. 3.The Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s. 234A and 234B of IT Act. The same should be uncalled for. 4.The appellant craves to reserve its right to add, alter, amend or deleted any ground of appeal during the course of hearing.” 3. At the outset, the appeal is delayed by 177 days. Ld. AR has filed an affidavit and requested for condonation of delay the same are reproduced as follows: “1. I have filed an appeal against the order issued u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act passed by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Surendranagar on 26.11.2018 and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi vide appellate order dated 24.03.2023 before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot on 16.11.2023. The said appeal is time barred by 177 days. 2. I am residing in Baldana village, Wadhwan, Surendranagar. I am engaged in agricultural activities. Due to my rural background, I have no formal knowledge of taxation laws, nor am I proficient with modern technology. I am not familiar with how to use or navigate the income tax e-filing portal or the email ID. 3. As soon as I received the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, I immediately approached a local tax consultant, Nareshbhai Dhanrajbhai kela, who resides in my village. Being in a remote area. I fully trusted him to handle all tax-related formalities on my behalf. The email address \"[e-mail],\" on which the notices were sent, also belongs to him. I was under the genuine belief that, as I had entrusted him with the entire process, he would have submitted all necessary documents and attended the hearings as required. 4. I received a notice dated 17.08.2023 via speed post (no. EG360161428IN) asking me to respond to the proposed levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. I tried to reach my tax consultant, who had been handling my appeal, but was unable to get a satisfactory response. Faced with uncertainty and stress, I turned to my friends and family for advice, seeking recommendations for an experienced tax consultant or legal professional who could offer me the assistance. Eventually, I was referred to Advocate Pratik Darji, who reviewed the income tax e-filing portal and informed me ITANo.392/RJT/2023 Abhishek Bijalbhai Kalotra that an ex-parte appellate order under section 250 of the Act had already been passed on 24.03.2023 due to non-compliance. 5. Advocate Pratik Darji then referred me to Advocate Hardik Vora, who practices in Ahmedabad. He advised me to file an appeal in Form 36 before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot. Advocate Vora promptly prepared the appeal documents and sent them to me for signature and payment of the appeal fees. However, given the Diwali festival and the fact that I am based in Baldana, Advocate Vora's office is in Ahmedabad, and the Hon'ble Tribunal is in Rajkot, a few additional days were required for the transit of documents. 6. In view of above facts, there was delay of 177 days in preferring appeal before Your Honor. I had no malafide intention by delaying the filing of appeal and hence, it is requested that the delay of 177days in filing of appeal may please be condoned in the interest of justice.” 4. Ld. AR submitted that the cause of delay the tax consultant who was engaged for pursuing the appeal has not kept due attention to the matter and the appeal disposed of ex-parte. On the contrary Ld. DR has submitted that due to such careless attitude and negligence on the part of the consultant the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and Ld. ITO has also passed ex-parte order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. 5. We have heard both the parties and we note that it is because of the mistake of the tax consultant the appeal was not pursued before the Ld. CIT(A). The appellant should not suffer because of mistake committed by the Ld. Counsel. We find that there is a sufficient cause to condoned the delay, therefore, we condoned the delay and admitted the appeal of the assessee for hearing. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and engaged in the agricultural activities. He did not file return of income for A.Y.2011-12. Ld. Assessing Officer had information regarding cash deposit in the bank by the appellant and he reopened the assessment proceedings. The ld. AO passed an order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on 26.11.2018 made an addition of Rs.15,23,320/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. ITANo.392/RJT/2023 Abhishek Bijalbhai Kalotra 4. That Feeling Aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2018 the appellant filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). That the appellant has not submitted any written submission or compliance of notices during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). That the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of grounds of appeal filed with form 35. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that appellant has appointed consultant to represent the case. The consultant neither appeared nor given information about the hearing of the case. Thereafter appellant has appointed another counsel who is attend the case properly. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed for a one more opportunity of hearing the case. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative fairly submitted that since the assessment order is passed on the basis of best judgment u/s 144 of the Act and CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of record. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee challenged the validity of order of Ld. CIT(A) and filed an appeal before us. the Ld. A.O has passed the order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act and made addition of Rs.15,23,320/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Despite various opportunities given by the Ld. AO. We note that before the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant has not offered any explanation regarding cash deposited in the bank Account on account of unexplained investment deposit in bank. Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the appellant to present his case. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of Ld. A.O for fresh adjudication after proper verification and examination of the relevant details and explanation to be furnished by the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Allowed for statistical purposes. ITANo.392/RJT/2023 Abhishek Bijalbhai Kalotra Order is pronounced in the open court on 25/11/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot True Copy Ǒदनांक/ Date: 25/11/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "