VIJAY PAUL ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 44(8), NEW DELHI

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Delay of 96 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

A perusal of the case file indicates that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his assessment in the assessee’s case on 31.12.2019 assessing his cash deposits of

It is in this factual backdrop that the learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed lower appellate discussion has nowhere considered and adjudicated the assessee’s detailed submissions and evidence explain source of the above cash deposits made in joint bank account maintained with wife and son so as to ensure compliance to section 250(6) of the Act. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the assessee shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

It is made clear before parting that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC shall also ensure that section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable in the assessee’s case in light of SMILE Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue against the department that the law applies to the transaction on or after 01.04.2017 only.