Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 require valid service of notice; failure to adequately consider the taxpayer's evidence for claimed losses invalidates additions made under Section 69.

ORDER

PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 04.10.2023 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1.1 The impugned order u/s 147 rws 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 04.12.2019 as well as the notice u/s 148 and action or proceedings u/s 147/148 are illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, without approval/satisfaction from the proper or competent authority, against the principle of natural justice and various other reasons or and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence the same may kindly be quashed.

1.2 The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the Ex-party order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without considering the material and details in gross breach of law and are bad in law, invalid, illegal and on facts of the case, and hence the same may kindly be quashed and the resultant addition may kindly be deleted in full.

2. The ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the Ex-party order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without considering the material and details in gross breach of law and are bad in law, invalid, illegal and on facts of the case, and hence the same may kindly be quashed and the resultant addition may kindly be deleted in full.

3. Rs. 6,99,273/-: The ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,99,273/- made by the ld. AO u/s 69 on account of alleged unexplained source for payment of loss. The ld. AO and CIT (A) both have also erred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense available on record. Hence the addition so made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is also being contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law. Hence the same may kindly be deleted in full.

4. The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A, B, C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full.

5. That the appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

3. We find that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 470 days. The assessee has filed application submitting therein the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and prayed for condonation of delay. In support of the application, the assessee has also filed an Affidavit dated 14^th April, 2025 duly sworn in before the Notary Public, for condonation of delay, which is being reproduced hereunder :-

“AFFIDAVIT

I, Maya Kumari W/o Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Aged years, R/o 167, Om Shiv Colony Shyam Marg Jhotwara Jaipur Rajasthan 302012 do hereby solemnly affirm on oath as under :

1. That I am IT Assessee and My PAN is ATDPK4509Q.

2. That an appeal is being filed by me before your honor for AY 2012-13 with the delay of about 16 month 12 days. Although in actually there is no delay after coming in my knowledge about the order.

3. That the ld. CIT (A) has passed the order on dt. 04.10.2023 which was not served upon me physically. However, as per date of order the appeal was to be filed on or before 03.12.2023