Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a belated appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 282 days, attributing it to a lack of understanding of tax laws and waiting for communication. The appeal emanates from an order of the NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed a large cash deposit during demonetization and, since the assessee was a non-filer and failed to file a return, treated Rs. 32,50,000/- as unexplained income under Section 69A and taxed it under Section 115BBE.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-appearance and non-submission of documents. However, considering a High Court decision on Section 115BBE, the Tribunal found it appropriate to send the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and present relevant documents.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable and whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, especially in light of the relevant provisions of Section 115BBE.
Sections Cited
143(1), 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bhim Singh vs. CIT, ROHTAK, HARYANA, VPO KASSAR, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana-124507 BhahdurgarH (PAN: GWGPS1295P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Anand Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.08.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFCA/S/250/2024-25/1065721807(1), Order dated 18.06.2024.
Heard both the parties and perused the records.
At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 282 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, assessee has filed the application alongwith its supporting affidavit affidavit for Condonation of Delay stating therein the delay was occurred due to the reasons that assesee is not well versed with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and thus he kept waiting for any notice or communication from the Income Tax Department side, without checking the income tax portal. After wailing so long time, no communication was received, he consulted the professional who took steps to file the appeal against the order of the Tribunal and filed the appeal on 09.06.2025, which resulted, the filing of belated appeal. Hence, it was requested to condone the disputed delay before this Tribunal. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, I find that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal, hence, I condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceeded further.
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, I find that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- “5.0 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was granted enough opportunity to file submissions and documents through the web portal in support of its grounds of appeal
. However, till date there has been no response from the appellant. Therefore, it is apparent that the appellant has no submissions/documents to submit in support of its grounds appeal. Accordingly, on the issue of non-appearance alone the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6.0 Without prejudice to the above, I have also considered the statement of fats and grounds of appeals filed as well as the assessment order. 7.0 The assessee is a non-filer. AO has noticed that the appellant has deposited huge cash in his bank account during the period of demonetization. Therefore, the notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee dated 12.12.2017 requiring the assessee to file his return of income by the specified dated i.e. 12.01.2018 but the assessee has failed to file his return of income till 31.03.2018. AO analyzed the cash deposit and withdrawal in the appellant’s bank account and found that there was a withdrawal of Rs. 12,50,000/- and deposit of Rs. 45,00,000/-. Thus, it was held that the appellant does not have any source for a cash deposit of Rs. 32,50,000/- in his bank account and the same was treated as unexplained income of the appellant under section 69A of the Act and taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 8.0 During the appeal proceedings, the appellant has not uploaded any submission or documentary evidence. Thus, the cash deposit of Rs. 32,50,000/- remains unexplained. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the AO. Accordingly, the grounds of the appellant are dismissed.”
5. After perusing the aforesaid findings, it transpires that since the assessee has not uploaded any submission or documentary evidence, thus the cash deposit remains unexplained. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper in the interest of justice, to send back the matter to the file of the concerned Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue in dispute afresh, after 2 | P a g e giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also direct the assessee through the Ld. AR to canvass its case properly by filing the relevant documents before the CIT(A) to enable him to decide the issue in accordance with law. I hold and direct accordingly. So far as assessee’s assessment u/s. 115 BBE of the Act is concerned, in view 5.1 of Hon’ble Madras High Court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT in WP(MD) no. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue against the department that the law applies to the transaction on or after 01.04.2017 only, however, the instant appeal is relating to assessment year 2017- 18.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced on 13.08.2025.