MOHAMMED OMER,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -9(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 359/HYD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 October 2021AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the pandemic's impact. It noted that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's business income and turnover reconciliation against the cash deposits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal faced an 86-day delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The core issue was an addition of Rs. 26,73,854 as unexplained money during demonetization, which the assessee claimed as trading receipts from poultry business.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained money was justified without considering the assessee's business income and turnover. The issue of delay in filing the appeal was also addressed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD SMC BENCH, HYDERABAD.

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARAShri Mohammed

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal

O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for the Asst. Year 2017-18 arise from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dt.16.03.2021 passed in case No. ITBA / NFAQC / S / 250 / 2020-21 / 1031509000(1) involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 ITA 359/Hyd/2021 2. I notice at the outset that assessee's instant appeal suffers form 86 days delay in filing. Learned counsel submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic covid 19 unable to get the documents form the department 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. I accordingly hold that assessee's impugned delay of 86 days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond his control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

3.

Coming to assessee's sole substantive grievance challenging the correctness of both the lower authorities’ action making 69A unexplained money addition of Rs.26,73,854 during demonetization period, learned counsel’s sole substantive argument is that the same pertains to his trading receipts derived from turnover in purchase and sale of poultry; both on wholesale and retail basis.

3 ITA 359/Hyd/2021 4. Learned department representative fails to dispute that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have considered the assessee's foregoing trading receipts / business income and turnover reconciliation vis-à-vis cash deposits in issue. I, therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant assessee's sole substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification in above terms. It is made it clear that the assessee’s only shall file all the corresponding details at his own risk and responsibility in consequential proceedings to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing.

5.

This assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th Oct., 2021.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →