Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL
Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pradeep Pati Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer, Brahmanagaon College Road, Brahmanagaon College Road, Keonjhar Keonjhargarh H. O Kendujahar onjhargarh H. O Kendujahar Town Kendujhar 758001 Kendujhar 758001 PAN/GIR No.AMAAPP 8010 D AMAAPP 8010 D (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty , Adv , Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This is an This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 18/11/2024 in Appeal No. in Appeal No. NFAC/2020- 21/10251602 for the ass for the assessment year 2021-22.
2. Shri P.R.Mohaty, P.R.Mohaty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.
The asssessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 3. The asssessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
P a g e 1 | 4
on For that, the order of the forum below passed U/s 250 of the I.T., Act, 1961, in Appeal No.- NFAC/2020-21/10251602 Dt.18/11/2024 by the CIT(Appeals), Income Tax Department is arbitrary, illegal and being unjustified deserves to be quashed in limine.
For that, non-adjudication of an appeal on merit and dismissing an appeal as not admitted on the ground of delay in filing the appeal in case of an individual assessee surviving in remote village area of Keonjhar District a tribal area doing agriculture along with small seasonal business being not well versed in computer, being inadequately educated depended upon legal representatives for statutory compliances cannot be penalized for the alleged so called inordinate delay in filing the appeal in online regime for the laches and lapses of the entrusted counsel which is difficult to establish is in gross violation to principle of natural justice and tantamount to tyranny and travesty of justice.
3. For that, the addition of Rs.1,47,93,800/- to the total income towards unexplained money added U/s 69A of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.39,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.71,40,000/- as STCG and an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- towards unexplained term deposit deserves to be allowed and cannot be disallowed on flimsy grounds on the basis of surmises or presumptions or assumptions deserves to be deleted due to compiling ground realities and existence of exceptional and unavoidable circumstances. 4. 4. For that, the addition of Rs.1,47,93,800/- to the total income towards unexplained money added U/s 69A of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.39,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.71,40,000/- as STCG and an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- towards unexplained term deposit deserves to be allowed on the ground not only it is unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as contrary to legislative intentions but also, unwarranted as per the statutory provisions.”
It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as defective without considering the merits of the case. It was the submission that the assessee is living in a remote area of Keonjhar District, doing agriculture alongwith small seasonal business and not fully educated.
P a g e 2 | 4 He depends upon the legal consultants of the local area. He submitted that due to online regime and for the inaction of the legal counsel, the appeal before the ld CIT(A) could not be filed within the time, therefore, there was delay of 109 days in filing the appeal. As the assessee fully depends upon the local counsel, the reasons for delay were not given in the Form 35 column No.15, which is not intentional by the assessee. He submitted that the delay in filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) be condoned and appeal be decided on merits.
In reply, ld Sr DR supported the order of ld CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. It is crystal clear that the delay of 109 days in filing of appeal was not condoned by the ld CIT(A), as no sufficient cause was shown under section 249(3) of the Act for the failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and as a result of which the appeal was not admitted and was rejected accordingly. The delay arose due to the tax consultant's negligence and the default occurred due to factors beyond his control. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently advocated for a liberal approach in condoning delays to further the cause of justice. In this case, the delay was not deliberate or due to any mala fide intention, and in the interest of substantial justice, we hereby condone the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A) and the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee subject to P a g e 3 | 4 cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to be deposited within 60 days from the date of this order under the head “others” in ITNS challan 280 in the Account No.500 and same is to be filed before the ld AO. In the event the cost is not paid, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and that of the AO would stand confirmed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 31/12/2024.
Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 31/12/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Pradeep Pati Brahmanagaon College Road, Keonjhargarh H. O Kendujahar Town Kendujhar 758001 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Kendujahr 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.Secretary, ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 4 | 4