2024 (8) TMI 874 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Condones Delay, Ensures Fair Hearing for Taxpayer by Remanding Case for Proper Evidence Submission.

The Appellate Tribunal condoned a 33-day delay in filing the appeal, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits. It remanded the case to the CIT (A) due to ... Addition u/s 69A - deposit in SBN during demonetization period), in his bank account - assessee could not produce documentary evidences and cash book to substantiate the deposits of SBN in bank account and the necessary evidences required for determination of business income - HELD THAT:- Assessee needs to explain the SBN deposits with proper books of accounts and other documentary evidences, which has not been done in this case. It is also not clear to us whether the notices from first appeal office is served through ITBA portal or otherwise. As such in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the files of the CIT (A), to allow the assessee an opportunity of producing all documentary evidences needed to explain and establish his case in relation to the grounds of appeal contained in form 35, and to pass an order on merits of the case, after obtaining necessary report from the AO as per provisions of law, and the assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings and file all documentary evidences to establish his claim. Notice of hearing from the CIT (A) office may be issued as per provisions of section 282 as per observation in the case of Munjal Bcu Centre Of Innovation [2024 (3) TMI 479 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, Arbitrary additions in assessment, Lack of opportunity for assessee during appellate proceedingsIn the present case, the primary issue before the Appellate Tribunal was the condonation of a 33-day delay in filing the appeal. The assessee, a senior citizen, explained the delay due to being unaware of the first appellate order's outcome, relying on a tax consultant who failed to inform him. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and lack of opposition from the Departmental Representative, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing on merits.Another critical issue raised in the appeal was the arbitrary additions made during the assessment. The assessee contended that the additions under section 69A of the Income Tax Act were unjust as they represented legitimate business transactions duly recorded in the books of accounts. The Tribunal noted the lack of opportunity for the assessee to present documentary evidence during the appellate proceedings, leading to a remand of the matter back to the CIT (A) for a fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to produce all necessary evidence to substantiate their claims.Furthermore, the issue of the assessee being deprived of a fair opportunity during the appellate proceedings was highlighted. The assessee claimed to have not received communication or notices for hearings, resulting in the inability to present crucial documentary evidence. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of providing a fair chance to the assessee to explain their case and directed the CIT (A) to ensure proper issuance of notices and allow the assessee to present all relevant documents for a thorough consideration of the appeal.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a fair and just process where the assessee is given adequate opportunities to present their case with supporting evidence. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the CIT (A) underscores the significance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in tax assessment proceedings.