9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corrupted and did not function properly and therefore the notices could not be accessed and complied with. The order passed by the ld. CIT(A) was only became known to the assessee when penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was received by the assessee. Thereafter the appeal was got prepared and filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 244 days. The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the delay is for genuine and bonafide reasons and assessee has not been benefited in any manner from the delayed filing in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and appeal may be admitted for adjudication. 03. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statutory notices were issued along with questionnaire, which were replied by the assessee. The Assessing Officer finally made the addition of Rs. 19 lacs on account of loan creditors which according to the ld. AO remained unexplained in the assessment framed u/s 147/143(3) dated 06.12.2018. 07. In the appellate proceedings, before the ld. CIT (A) the appeal was decided ex-parte in limine when the assessee failed to respond on three occasions when the assessee was provided opportunity of hearing. 08. Now, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised a legal issue before us, challenging the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act. The ld. AR stated that impugned assessment year is A.Y. 2013-14 and notice u/s 148 of the Act was dated 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the re-opening on the basis of said reasons is nullity and bad in the eyes of law. In defence of his argument, Ld. A/R relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT Vs. CEAT Ltd. reported in [2022] 449 ITR 171 (SC). Ld. A/R pointed out that in the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court the issue was whether the notice issued after a period of four years after relevant assessment year where the assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, proviso to Section 147 of the Act shall apply. In that case Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the AO has to first demonstrate the failure on the part of the petitioner failing which the re-opening is bad in law. Ld. AR referred to the last para of the decision of the Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
