Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH” PATNA
Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Abhishek Koni, AR Department represented by : Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 30.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 31.01.2025
ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the Assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2015-16 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the Ld. Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi,
Md. Sabir Alam dated 21.02.2024 arising out of Assessment Order dated 17.03.2023, passed under Section147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act.
At the time of hearing, Ld. AR stated that there is delay of 77 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On this aspect assessee had filed a petition praying for condonation of such delay.
We after perusing application filed by the revenue, find that there is a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. Considering the same, condone such delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file return of income for the AY 2015-16 based on the information regarding cash deposits of Rs. 10 lacs or more in Savings Bank Account proceeding u/s 148 of the Act were initiated. Despite giving multiple opportunities the assessee did not respond to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO based on the material available on record found that the assessee had made unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 73,79,085/- in the bank account. This amount was added to the income of the assessee while computing the total income of the assessee. Additionally, an amount of Rs. 43,614/- was also added as interest income in the hands of the assessee by assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 74,22,699/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, due to non-appearance and non-payment of advance tax as required u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds, he also noted that the assessee did not file a petition u/s 208 for condonation of liability to pay advance tax.
Md. Sabir Alam 6. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee approached this Tribunal, the Ld. AR arguing that the impugned order was passed an exparte without proper opportunity to present the documents and assessee is willing to submit necessary evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits made during the year. Therefore, the matter should be remanded back for fresh consideration to Ld. AO.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR opposed the appeal stating that sufficient opportunities had already been given to the assessee. However, the assessee has failed to avail those opportunities, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.
We after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, find that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Ld. AO were exparte although the assessee had been given opportunities, no supporting documents were submitted earlier. In the interest of justice and fair play, it is necessary to give another opportunity to the assessee, therefore, interest of justice and fair play it is necessary to remand back the whole issue to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication.
In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 31st January, 2025.