Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: MANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Soumyaranjan Soumyaranjan Vs. ITO, Ward Bhawanipatna. ITO, Ward Bhawanipatna. Tripathi,Risida, Tripathi,Risida, Madanpur Madanpur Rampur, Kalahandi. Rampur, Kalahandi. PAN/GIR No PAN/GIR No.AMTPT 2991 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Sarangi, CA : Shri S.K.Sarangi, CA Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 15/0 05/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 15/0 /05/2024 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), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 30.8.2022 in Appeal No. in Appeal No. CIT(A), Sambalpur/10406/2019 /10406/2019-20 for the assessment year 2017 2017-18.
Shri S.K.Sarangi S.K.Sarangi, Ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, L S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.
It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is an individual, who is is an individual, who is in the business correspondent of Uco Bank. The assessee in the discharge in the business correspondent of Uco Bank. The assessee in the discharge in the business correspondent of Uco Bank. The assessee in the discharge
P a g e 1 | 4 of duty, as a business correspondent, had collected monies from the bank customers and deposited the same in his bank account maintained with Uco Bank and the funds were transferred to the account holder by the bank on the basis of account details submitted by the assessee. It was the submission that the AO had issued notices u/s.133(6) of the Act to Uco Bank and Uco Bank had also confirmed the same. It was the submission that as the assessee had not been represented before the AO, the AO without considering any of the evidences obtained by him under section 133(6) of the Act, treated the entire cash deposit in the bank account maintained by the assessee as the business correspondent as income of the assessee. It was the prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of the Assessing officer and the assessee would be able to substantiate all the entries with the corresponding entries from the bank statement obtained by the AO. It was the submission that the assessee is from Kalahandi district, which is remote area of the State, therefore, the assessee could not represent before the AO and ld CIT(A). It was the submission that there was a delay of 445 days in filing of the appeal, which had happened on account of the mis-communication between the assessee and ld AR of the assessee insofar as ld AR had also forgotten to intimate the assessee regarding filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It was the prayer that the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned and the issues be restored to the file of the AO.
P a g e 2 | 4
In reply, ld SR DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessee is only a business correspondent of Uco Bank. The assessment order clearly shows that the AO had obtained information u/s.133(6) of the Act from Uco Bank. The paper book filed by the assessee also shows that the evidences collected by the AO from Uco Bank admittedly require to be reconciled. This being so, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted and disposed off on merits and the issues are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 15/05/2024.