Case Law Details
Manoj Kumar Ekambaram Arcot Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore reviewed an appeal by Manoj Kumar Ekambaram Arcot regarding the denial of exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16. The case was initially scrutinized due to large deductions claimed under multiple sections, but the assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to an addition of ₹72,14,370. Despite later submitting a sale agreement, the lack of supporting documents led to the rejection of the exemption claim. The CIT(A) upheld the assessment order in an ex-parte decision due to the assessee’s continued non-compliance, following a delayed appeal of 164 days. The assessee argued that notices were sent to his Chartered Accountant, who failed to act, leading to further delays in appealing.
Upon review, ITAT acknowledged a 256-day delay in filing the appeal but condoned it, citing no direct fault of the assessee. During proceedings, the assessee provided a paper book containing sale and purchase deeds along with income computations. Given that the CIT(A)’s order was ex-parte, ITAT decided not to examine the merits but set aside the order, allowing the assessee a fresh opportunity to present evidence. The case was remanded to CIT(A) for a new hearing with instructions to reassess after considering the submitted documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 31/10/2023 in respect of the A.Y. 2015-16.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income on 30/09/2015. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued for the reason that large deductions were claimed u/s. 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G and 54GA. For all the notices, the assessee had not filed their reply and thereafter a show cause notice for imposing penalty was issued to the assessee. The assessee appeared through the authorized representative and submitted that the assessee had purchased a new property and produced the copy of the sale agreement. The assessee had not produced any documents. The AO on the basis that no document has been produced by the assessee to show that he had purchased the property shown in the sale agreement, he had denied the claim of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 72,14,370/-. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 164 days. Thereafter the assessee had not responded to the various notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal after condoning the said delay in filing the appeal. As against the ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal with the following grounds of appeal.
“1. The order of the authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity and weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed to a total income of Rs. 75,27,810/- as against the returned income of Rs.3,13,444/- for the impugned assessment year 2015-16 on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have provided another opportunity of hearing in the interest of natural justice and equity before dismissing the appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the assessee has reinvested the sale consideration in purchasing a house and is eligible for exemption under section 54 of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned Assessing Officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernible from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or substitute any of the grounds urged above.
7. In the view of the above and other grounds that maybe urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed and appropriate relief be granted in the interest on justice and equity.”
3. The assessee also filed a petition to condone the delay of 256 days in filing the appeal. In the said petition for condonation, the assessee narrated the events which caused the delay in filing the appeal. In the petition, the assessee submitted that before the Ld.CIT(A), the email ID of the Chartered Accountant was given and therefore all the notices were sent to the Chartered Accountant but no action has been taken by them and therefore the appeal could not be prosecuted effectively by the assessee. The assessee also submitted that no physical notice was issued by the department as well as by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore they were not able to reply to the various notices issued by the authorities. It is the further case of the assessee that only after the penalty notices were issued to the very same email ID of the Chartered Accountant, he replied to the said notices and also informed to the assessee about the status of the appeal and penalty proceedings. At that time only, the assessee came to know about the ex-parte order as well as penalty proceedings and thereafter the assessee approached the present counsel and the appeal was filed on 11/09/2024 as against the due date of 30/11/2023. The assessee therefore submitted that there was a delay of 256 days in filing the appeal and prayed to condone the said delay.
The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the assessee had not produced any documents before the AO and also not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A).
4. We have perused the delay condonation petition filed by the assessee and we are satisfied with the reasons adduced by the assessee for condoning the said delay. For no fault of the assessee, he should not be punished and therefore we are condoning the said delay.
5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR filed a paper book and enclosed the sale deed dated 27/11/2014 and the copy of the purchase deed dated 29/09/2004 and the copy of the computation of income and the copy of the revised computation of the income and prayed that the assessee is having a good case on merits but unfortunately the assessee was not able to produce the documents before the authorities and prayed to grant one more opportunity to establish their case.
The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Before going into the merits of the case, we have perused the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and found that the said order has been passed ex-parte. The Ld.CIT(A) had also extracted the various dates in which hearing notices were issued and decided the appeal ex-parte since the assessee had not cooperated. Even though the assessee had filed a paper book containing various documents, since the Ld.CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte, we are not going into the merits of the issue. We are therefore allowing the appeal filed by the assessee by setting aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the sole reason that the same was passed ex-parte. It is upto to the assessee to adduce the evidences before the Ld.CIT(A) when the matter is taken up for hearing. With the above observations, we remit this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo consideration and pass orders afresh in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th December, 2024.
Author Bio
