Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: MANISH AGARWAL
Date of Hearing : 20/0 06/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), CIT(A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated dated 25.9.2013 25.9.2013 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10577/2019 CIT(A),Cuttack/10577/2019-20 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2017-18.
Shri S.K.Hota, S.K.Hota, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.
The appeal is time barred by 49 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 49 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 49 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit, stating that the C.A. dealing petition supported by affidavit, stating that the C.A. dealing petition supported by affidavit, stating that the C.A. dealing
P a g e 1 | 3 with the tax matter of the assessee was suffering from cardiac problem and ultimately gone under by-pass surgery and all the notices were sent by the department in the e-mail id given by the CA. When the assessee received the demand notice, it was known that the ld CIT(A) has passed the impugned order. It was in this backdrop that there was delay of 49 days in filing of the appeal. This fact has not been found to be false. In view of above, we condone the delay of 49 days and admit the appeal for hearing.
It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the impugned order exparte without giving opportunity to the assessee to present its case before him. It was his submission that the Assessing Officer has also passed order u/s.144 of the Act despite the fact that the source of cash deposits are from the explained business transactions. It was his prayer that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, where, the assessee would be in a position to provide all the details to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the source of cash deposits in the bank are from the explained business transaction.
In reply, ld Sr DR supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submission. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the only ground raised in the grounds of appeal is against confirmation of addition of Rs.39,60,506/- made u/s.69A of the Act. It was his submission that the assessee has all the evidences to prove that P a g e 2 | 3 the cash deposited in the bank are from business transaction, therefore, prayed that only remedy is the restoration of ex-parte assessment passed under Section 144 of the Act to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case in accordance with law. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the AO for fresh consideration as per law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 20/06/2024.
Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 20/06/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Shiv Shankar Bhoot, C/O- OM prakash Bhoot, Ward-6, Rairangpur 2. The Respondent: ITO, Ward-1, Baripada 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy//