9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 734 - AT - Income TaxEx Parte Order Passed by CIT(A) - CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance of notice - Validity of order passed u/s 144 - Notices u/s 142(1) were issued calling for specific details and Assessee began gathering the details as required by the learned ITO meanwhile the Ld.AO passed his order u/s 144 - denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. HELD THAT - Before us, ld. A.R. submitted that assessee is not well versed in Income Tax Portal and failed to notice about the notice issued by the department digitally. Hence, he prayed that one more opportunity of hearing may be given before the Ld. CIT(A). We accede to the request of the Ld. A.Rs. and remit the issue in dispute to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Validity of the ex parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. 3. Assessment of total income. 4. Addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 5. Application of special tax rates under Section 115BBE. 6. Levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appellant filed a condonation petition for a delay of 31 days in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the appellant's preoccupation with resolving financial issues of a company in which he is a director, lack of employees, and unfamiliarity with the new income-tax e-proceedings regime. The Tribunal noted that the delay was not deliberate or intentional and cited the Supreme Court's liberal approach in such matters, referencing *Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others [1987] 167 ITR 471*. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it, allowing the appeal to be heard on merits. 2. Validity of the Ex Parte Order Passed by CIT(A): The appellant argued that the ex parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as he was not given another opportunity for a hearing. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not well-versed with the Income Tax Portal and failed to notice digital notices issued by the department. The Tribunal agreed to the appellant's request for another opportunity and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after giving the appellant a chance to be heard. 3. Assessment of Total Income: The appellant contested the assessment of total income at Rs. 2,35,27,070/- by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A), as opposed to the returned income of Rs. 12,68,970/-. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue but remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-evaluation. 4. Addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act: The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 2,22,58,100/- as unexplained money under Section 69A. He argued that the deposits were from explainable sources, including amounts received back from land purchase advances, relatives, and earlier withdrawals. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this issue but remitted it back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. Application of Special Tax Rates under Section 115BBE: The appellant contended that the CIT(A) was not justified in applying special tax rates under Section 115BBE for the entire year, as the provision was introduced only on 15/12/2016. The Tribunal did not address this issue in detail but remitted it back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. 6. Levy of Interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act: The appellant argued against the levy of interest under Section 234B, citing incorrect period, rate, quantum, and method of calculation. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue but included it in the remand to the CIT(A). Conclusion: The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring the appellant is given a fair opportunity to present his case. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|
