2021 (7) TMI 62 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - inordinate delay of 934 days - Bogus purchases - HELD THAT - We note that the AO has passed an order completely devoid of any reasoning. Thereafter, the assessee was pursuing rectification application u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. The reasonable brief of the assessee that the rectification application would succeed cannot be said to be not cogent. In these circumstances, when the petition u/s. 154 was rejected assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) has treated the reasonable cause for the delay to be not sustainable. In our considered opinion Ld.CIT(A) has completely misled himself by not considering at all the fact that the assessment order passed by the AO was completely devoid of any reasoning whatsoever. Despite the assessee providing all the documentary evidence as required by the AO and the fact that notice u/s. 133(6) having also been complied with. Hence, the reasoning stated by the AO in making the 100% addition is completely bereft of any reasoning whatsoever. He has mentioned that after considering the overall facts and circumstances, he is making 100% addition. In our considered opinion this is not any reasoning whatsoever. Hence, assessee belief that he will succeed in the alternative remedy cannot be brushed aside. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the delay of filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was on account of cogent and reasonable reasoning and the same ought to have been condoned. The same is as such condoned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-consideration of appeal on merits by CIT(A)
2. Failure to condone delay in filing the appeal
3. Non-consideration of re-opening u/s. 147 of the Act
4. Holding addition of purchase as bogus
5. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for delay condonation
6. Lack of reasoning in AO's order

Analysis:
Issue 1: The Assessee's appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s order for not considering the appeal on merits. The AO had made a 100% addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal, leading to the Assessee's challenge.

Issue 2: The delay in filing the appeal was not condoned by the CIT(A), resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The Assessee had pursued a rectification application u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, which was rejected, leading to the appeal before the CIT(A). The delay of 934 days was not considered reasonable by the CIT(A, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 3: The AO had reopened the case under section 147 of the Act based on information received regarding accommodation entries. The Assessee provided necessary details and documents, including responding to notices. However, the AO's order lacked reasoning, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the lack of reasoning in the AO's order.

Issue 4: The AO held the addition of purchases as bogus, leading to a 100% addition to the Assessee's income. The Assessee's failure to produce the party for verification led to the conclusion that the transactions were not genuine. Penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing income.

Issue 5: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the delay in filing, stating that the delay of 934 days was not reasonable and no sufficient cause was demonstrated. The dismissal was based on the failure to condone the delay, without delving into the merits of the case.

Issue 6: The lack of reasoning in the AO's order was highlighted during the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the AO's order lacked any reasoning, and the Assessee had provided all necessary documents. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits after condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, highlighting the need for proper consideration of merits and reasoning in tax assessments and appeal processes.