TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."1. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,00,000 on count of adhoc estimation of GP of 25% on alleged 'bogus purchase' of Rs. 4,00,000 of `Rice'; assessee is only a 'trader' there cannot he "bogus purchase" in case of a "trader" wherein 'corresponding sales quantity' of such 'trading items' i.e., 'Rice' is not disputed by the revenue; without giving any valid basis for such arbitrary estimation; addition of Rs. 1,00,000 is unjustified; is liable to be deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s. 147 r.ws. 144 dt. 19-12-18 by ACIT-1(1) would be invalid; as he was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to make assessment as returned income was Rs. 7,31,470 as per ROI filed on 30-9-11; CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, dt. 31-1-11 No. 6/2011 dt. 8-4-11 is binding on the IT authorities u/s. 119: in absence of a valid jurisdiction possessed by the ACIT, u/s. 124(1), sec. 120 sec. 2(7A) for making assessment over the assessee for A.Y. 11-12; reassessment made u/s. 147 rws. 144 dt. 19-12-18, would be invalid and is liable to be quashed." Also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... occasioned for the reason that though the assessee in Form 35 had categorically stated that all the notices/communications be made available otherwise than by email but no physical /hard copy of the order of the CIT(Appeals) was served upon him. The Ld. AR further submitted that on a similar footing no physical /hard copy of the "Show Cause Notice" (SCN) intimating the fixation of the appeal was ever served upon the assessee in the mode requested by him. The Ld. AR in order to fortify the aforesaid factual position had drawn our attention to Form 35. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the impugned delay in filing of the present appeals had occasioned for no fault on the part of the assessee, therefore, the same may be condoned. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had filed an application a/w. an affidavit dated 03.05.2024. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') vehemently opposed to the seeking of condonation of the delay in filing of the captioned appeals. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay involved in filing of the appeals was inordinate, therefore, the same did not merit to be condoned. However, the Ld. DR on be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....352;ायपुर का प्रोपराइटर हूँ, एवं इसमें राइस मिलिंग का व्यापर किया जाता है। मेरा PAN-AHPPK7502H है। 2. यह कि मैंने कर निर्धारण वर्ष 11-12 की अपील माननीय आयकर आयुक्त (अपील) के समक्ष Form No. 35 दिनाँक 17-1-19 को जमा किया गया है, जिसमें मैंने "Whether notices/ communication may be sent on email....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2368;य अधिकरण, रायपुर के समक्ष दाखिल करनी पड़ेगी, तब मैंने अपील चालान फीस 10,000/- दिनांक 6-4-24 को जमा करके, 6-4-24 को ही माननीय आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायपुर के समक्ष Form No. 36 में अपील दाखिल की है। 5. यह कि, Form No. 36 जो कि दिनांक 6-4-24 को दाखिल किया गया है, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....about the same from his accountant in March, 2024, therefore, in our view, the filing of the appeal on 06.04.2024 cannot justifiably be held to have been delayed on account of any lapses or lackadaisical conduct of the assessee. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of a firm conviction that the impugned delay involved in filing of the captioned appeals merits to be condoned. 7. Apropos the merits of the case, we find that the assessee who is running a rice mill had filed his return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring an income of Rs. 7,31,470/-. 8. Survey u/s. 133A of the Act was carried out by the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Raipur on Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Raipur as well as at the office/premises of the other rice millers and two brokers on 15.03.2016. Based on the information gathered during the post survey investigation that the assessee had made bogus purchases of Rs. 4 lacs, the A.O reopened his case u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 13.03.2018 was served upon the assessee, which, however, remained uncompiled with. 9. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had stated to have purchased paddy/broken rice fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in which the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of persuasion of appeal has stated that- "Preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it" 4.2 The Delhi Tribunal in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) when faced with a similar situation of non-persuasion of appeal, dismissed the appeal of revenue. 4.3 In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the AO's assessment order and therefore, the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 5. In result, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed." 11. As observed hereinabove, the CIT(Appeals) had disposed off the appeal for non-prosecution and had failed to apply his mind to the issues which did arise from the impugned order and were assailed by the assessee before him. Once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(Appeals), it becomes obligatory on his part to dispose off the same on merit and it is not open for him to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the same by the assessee. In case the CIT(Appeals) concurred with the additions/disallowance made by the A.O., then he is obligated to r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of nonprosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the s. 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Sec. 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act." 12. Apart from that, we find that the assessee had in Form 35 clearly opted out from the service of notices/communications from the office of the CIT(Appeals) through email. As the notices intimating the fixation of the appeal were dropped in the assessee's e-mail account, therefore, there is substance in his claim that as he was not validly put to notice about the hearing of the appeal, thus, the same had resulted to failure on his part to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority. Neither anything is discernible from the record nor is it the claim of the revenue before us that the notices intimating the fixation of the appeal were served upon the assessee in a mod....