SHRI SATYA NARAYAN PATEL,INDORE vs. ITO-3(4), INDORE

As the issues raised in both appeals are common, both were heard together and therefore are being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity.

Brief facts as culled out from the records are that both these cases which are of individuals namely Shri Dinesh Patel & Shri Satya Narayan Patel. Returns of income were not filed. Information about the cash deposit in the saving bank account was received from the bank authority to the Information system of income Tax Department. Matter referred to the assessing officer. Show cause notices were issued to both the assessees. There was no compliance. As a result Ld. AO, went ahead to frame an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 of the Act. There was an alleged cash deposit of Rs.1,36,00,000/- in the case of Shri Dinesh Patel and Rs. 1,35,85,000/- in the case of Shri Satya Narayan Patel. In the impugned assessment order Ld. AO after considering the report issued by the Income Tax Officer, 3(4), Indore, completed the ex- parte assessment making addition for unexplained cash credit of Rs. Rs.1,36,00,000/- and Rs. 1,35,85,000/- in the case of assessees namely, Shri Dinesh Patel & Shri Satya Narayan Patel respectively.

Aggrieved, assessee(s) preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) but ITANo.219 & 220/Ind/2019 Shri Dinesh Patel & Satya Narayan Patel since there was a delay in filing the appeal and in view of the ld. CIT(A) the reason for delay was not satisfactory, the same was not condoned and both the appeals were dismissed in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.

Now, both the appeals are before the Tribunal commonly raising two issues. Firstly, that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning delay in filing the appeal before him and secondly, the issues on merits not adjudicated.

Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the affidavit filed before the first appellate authority and also before us submitting that both the assessees are not well educated and do not understand English language. They are dependent on the tax advisor who did not file the appeal on time which resulted in the delay in filing the appeal. Ld. counsel for the assessee humbly prayed for condoning the delay made in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and issue necessary directions for adjudicating the issues on merits.

Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the request made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the information of cash deposit for Rs.1,36,00,000/- and Rs.1,35,85,000/- in the saving bank accounts of Mr. Dinesh Patel and Satya Narayan Patel was received by the Income Tax Department. Both the assessees did not cooperate in the assessment proceedings which left no option to the 3

We further observe that both the assessees committed mistake as there was a delay in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority by both the assessees. We have gone through the affidavit filed by both the assessees before the ld. CIT(A) and before us. Looking to the fact that both assessees are not well educated, and are not filing the return regularly and their sources of income primarily looks to be from agricultural land/agricultural operations. Generally the assessees depend on the tax consultant/tax advisor for the tax consultant and filing of return and appeals. In the instant case, assessment order has framed on 28.12.2017 and appeal filed on 30th April 2018. The delay is not extraordinary.

Therefore, looking to the surrounding circumstances, we are of the considered view that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee(s) for the alleged delay in filing the appeal. We, therefore, in the interest of justice condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in the cases of the assessees namely, Shri Dinesh Patel and Satya Narayan Patel. We further set aside all the issues raised on merits before us in both the appeals to the respective file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating that on merits and to pass a speaking order. If necessary, remand report may be called from the concern assessing officer. We, accordingly, allowed 4

In the result, appeals of the assessees in ITANo.219 & 220/Ind/2019 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.