Saroj Agrawal Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
ITAT Raipur condoned 274-day delay & set aside ex-parte order of CIT(A)/NFAC which had confirmed addition of ₹15.06 lakh as unexplained money u/s 69A & taxed u/s 115BBE. Tribunal noted that all appellate notices & order were sent to email/address of assessee’s erstwhile tax consultant who had since expired, resulting in bona fide non-compliance. Revenue did not dispute this factual position. Holding that no deliberate or mala fide conduct was attributable to Assessee & that passing ex-parte appellate order violated principles of natural justice, Tribunal remanded matter to CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication on merits, directing grant of one final opportunity & passing of a speaking order u/s 250(4) & 250(6). Appeal was allowed for statistical purposes
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAIPUR
The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 27.12.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the following grounds of appeal:
“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing proper opportunity and without following the principles of natural justice.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming addition of Rs.15,06,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and subjecting the same to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act.
3. The impugned order is bad in law and on facts.
4. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, omit or amend all or any of the grounds of appeal in the interest of justice.
2. At the outset, it is noted that this appeal is time barred by 274 days. That explaining the reasons for such delay, the assessee had filed a condonation petition as well as an affidavit. That in the affidavit in clause 5, it is mentioned that all the hearing notices and the order passed u/s 250 of the Act was sent to the e-mail of the assessee’s erstwhile tax consultant Late Shri Sanjay Tamaskar and the address given therein was of the assessee’s erstwhile counsel for which the assessee was not aware of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC nor was aware regarding the hearing notices that was issued during the course of the appellate proceedings. The Ld. Sr. DR conceded that as mentioned in para 5 of the said affidavit by the assessee, indeed the address mentioned belongs to the Late erstwhile counsel of the assessee and therefore, she did not raise any objection regarding condonation of delay of 274 days. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I herein refer to the following decisions:
(i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos…………………….. /2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024], dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), Tax Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, passed by Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. (iii) Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No……… /2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, accordingly, the said delay of 274 days is condoned.
3. Regarding the merits of the matter, it is noticed from para 4.2 onwards that there was no compliance by the assessee regarding the hearing notices issued from the office of CIT(A)/NFAC and in the foregoing paras it was just examined the possible reason why those notices remained non-complied with. That in absence of any evidence placed on record by the revenue showing any deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee for such non-compliance, therefore, cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee.
