NARESH KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 563/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 November 2021AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's regular business activity and the peak sum of cash deposits, and therefore restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal suffered from a significant delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessment and lower appellate orders, which made an addition of Rs. 15,94,20,093 as unexplained cash deposits, were passed ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits was rightly made without considering the assessee's business activity and peak balance. Whether the ex-parte assessment orders were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao

O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2010-11 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajamahendravaram, E.G. district, A.P’s order dt.12.12.2019 passed in case No.10069/2018-

19/CIT(A)/RJY in proceedings under Section 144 r,w,s, 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

We notice at the outset that assessee's instant appeal suffers from 543 days delay in filing. Learned counsel submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic covid 19 and other reasons mentioned in the condonation petition filed before us, which caused the impugned delay in filing of the instant appeal. Case law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17th Dec., 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee's impugned delay of five hundred and forty three days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits therefore.

3.

It is noticed at the outset that the assessment order dt.29.12.2017 as well as lower appellate orders under challenge making addition of Rs.15,94,20,093 as unexplained cash deposits, have been passed exparte. Learned CIT-DR vehemently contended during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly made the impugned addition since the assessee failed to explain source thereof in the corresponding proceedings. He fails to dispute that neither of the learned lower authority has considered the assessee's regular business activity as well as the peak sum of the impugned cash deposit in assessment as well as in lower appellate proceedings. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the assessee's instant sole instant substantive grievance on merits back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification subject to the condition that it shall be the risk and responsibility of the tax payer only to file all the evidences on record within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

4.

All other legal as well as other grounds on merits are not pressed at this stage.

5.

This assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th Nov., 2021.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →