Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kamala Kanta Basa Kamala Kanta Basa, Ward Vs. ITO, Baripada ITO, Baripada No.09, No.09, Deula Deula Sahi, Sahi, Baripada, Mayurbhanj Baripada, Mayurbhanj PAN/GIR No PAN/GIR No.AFNPB 9021 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Chitta Ranjan Sahoo, Adv Sahoo, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR , ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 29/0 08/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29/0 /08/2024 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A), CIT(A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated 30.9.2023 30.9.2023 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10673/2019 Cuttack/10673/2019-20 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2017-18.
Shri Chitta Ranjan Chitta Ranjan Sahoo, ld AR appeared for appeared for the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR , ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal is time barred by 248 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 248 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 248 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit stating the reasons for not filing condonation petition supported by affidavit stating the reasons for not filing condonation petition supported by affidavit stating the reasons for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time period. After considering the rival ppeal within the stipulated time period. After considering the rival ppeal within the stipulated time period. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the condonation petition, I find that the reasons submissions and perusing the condonation petition, I find that the reasons submissions and perusing the condonation petition, I find that the reasons given in the condonation petition have not been found to be false. given in the condonation petition have not been found to be false. given in the condonation petition have not been found to be false. P a g e 1 | 3 Therefore, I condone the delay of 248 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that despite given several opportunities to present his case, the assessee has not provided any reply and written submission in response to the notices. Even a perusal of the assessment order also shows that there was no compliance from the side of the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Ld AR in the Bar submits that if one more opportunity is given, the assessee will cooperate in the set aside proceedings in disposal of the appeal.
One of the issues in the appeal is that the assessee has collected Demonetization currency after the date of Demonetization period and the business of the assessee being a variety store, the assessee is not entitled to collect the Demonetized currency. The Assessing Officer shall examine as to the exact amount of demonetized currency collected by the assessee after the date of Demonetization period and if the assessee is able to tally the same with his cash book, such amount of demonetized currency as collected by him and as are available with him as on 8.11.2016 is to be allowed and any Demonetized currency collected after the said date i.e. 8.11.2016 is to be treated as unexplained income of the assessee. With these directions, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the P a g e 2 | 3 Assessing Officer for readjudication after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes .