Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” DELHI
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
The captioned Appeals arises from the respective order of CIT(A) are tabulated hereunder: ITA No. A.Y. Assessee Assessment CIT(A) Order Appeal order date by 8113/Del/2019 2009-10 Satya 30.11.2016 CIT(A)- 19, Assessee Prakash New Delhi, order dated 31.01.2019 8114/Del/2019 2009-10 Satya 30.11.2016 CIT(A)- 19, Assessee Prakash New Delhi, order dated 31.01.2019 8115/Del/2019 2009-10 Satya 29.05.2017 CIT(A)- 19, Assessee Prakash New Delhi, order dated 31.01.2019 8116/Del/2019 2009-10 Satya 29.05.2017 CIT(A)- 19, Assessee Prakash New Delhi, order dated 31.01.2019 , 8114, 8115, 8116/DEL/2019 2
(i) As per Rs.37500/- and quantum additions of Rs.2,56,813/- made on estimated basis towards unexplained deposits in bank account.
(ii) As per captioned above, the assessee has challenged estimation of income at 15% of the cash deposits of Rs.17,12,090/- instead of 8% thereon.
(iii) As per the assessee has challenged imposition of penalty under Section 271F of Rs. 5,000/- for not filing return of income.
(iv) As per the assessee has challenged imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- for non attendance in the assessment proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act.
When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel, to begin with, sought condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the delay is attributable to the illness of the assessee. The delay being short and in the absence of any serious prejudice to the revenue, the delay stands condoned.
With the assistance of the ld. counsel for the assessee, we observe that the assessee has failed to appear before the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceeding resulting in ex-parte additions on estimated basis towards cash deposits of Rs.17,12,090/-. The assessee has also failed to appear before the CIT(A). The assessee contends that he is a very small person of ordinary means and has no taxable income and thus no proper understanding of law. It is pleaded on behalf of the assessee that one more opportunity should , 8114, 8115, 8116/DEL/2019 3 be given to balance the justice and enable the department to pass just and fair order. In the alternate, it was contended that the addition of cash deposits should be restricted to 8% which is the benchmark as provided in the presumptive taxation scheme.
Having regard to the total non attendance before the lower authorities, we do not seek to express any opinion on merit. However, the appeal in and other connected appeals captioned above are restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the assessee.
While remitting all the matters to the file of the CIT(A), we consider it necessary to impose a token cost of Rs.2,000/- to the assessee in aggregate owing to continued negligence shown to the statutory notices at both the levels. The assessee shall deposit the cost awarded in favour of ‘The Prime Minister Relief Fund and receipt thereof shall be furnished before the CIT(A).
With these terms, all the four captioned appeals of the assessee are restored to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law.