SRI KALKI TRADERS,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2373/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Kalki Traders, a firm that did not file its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on flagged data of cash transactions. The Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order adding Rs.2,96,55,000 to the assessee's income due to unreported cash transactions. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 264 days, which was not accepted as a sufficient cause. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the CIT(A) had not provided an opportunity to present its case, violating principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29919 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: K. VISHWA PADMANABHAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 144; 264

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी जॉजᭅ जॉजᭅ के, उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2373/Chny/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Kalki Traders, No.33, Avadhana Papier Road, 1st Lane Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. [PAN: ABJFS-6874-Q] v. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, CA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.07.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a firm had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017- 18. Based on the information flagged in NMS data of cash :-2-: ITA. No: 2373/Chny/2024 deposits and withdrawals from current account during the financial year 2016-17, notice u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 23.03.2021 was issued to the assessee, along with further statutory notices on various dates calling of details/explanation. The assessee did not reply to any of the notices nor filed return of income in response to notices sent. Hence, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29.03.2022, by making an addition of Rs.2,96,55,000/- on account of cash transactions made in the bank account of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A)-NFAC with a delay of 264 days. 3. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without admitting for adjudication as it was not filed within the time limit and the reasons provided by the assessee does not fall within the ambit of sufficient cause for the delay. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The ld.AR for the assessee stated that the assessee has closed down the business and also not aware of the notices been issued, hence could not respond by filing an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Since, the ld.CIT(A) did not provide the assessee any opportunity to present its case, not seeking show cause from the :-3-: ITA. No: 2373/Chny/2024 assessee for non-filing of appeal within the due date is violation of principle of natural justice and fair play and hence, the ld.AR for the assessee prayed before us for setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the file back to the Assessing Officer since the Assessing Officer has passed an exparte order to defend the assessee’s case. 5. Per contra, the ld.DR fairly accepted for remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the materials available on record and orders of the authorities below. We note that the assessment order passed by the AO was exparte and the ld.CIT(A) also has dismissed the appeal without participation of the assessee in the appeal proceedings. Since, exparte order has been passed by the AO we deem it fit to set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. :-4-: ITA. No: 2373/Chny/2024 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 22nd November, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- (जॉजŊ जॉजŊ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाȯƗ /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 22nd November, 2024 JPV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT – Chennai 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "