Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed with a delay of 186 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee's representative's failure to inform the assessee about the order and the assessee's business trip abroad. The case involves unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 67,16,000/- made during the demonetization period.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, accepting the reasons provided. It was held that since relevant documents were not placed before the CIT(A) and are germane to the issue, the matter should be remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable, and whether the case should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication due to non-submission of relevant documents to the lower authorities.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, DELHI
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY
The instant appeal is barred by limitation for 186 days in support of which an application for condonation of delay has been preferred. The reason for delay in preferring the appeal has been narrated by the assessee contending that the representative who was handling the case at that material point of time not informed the assessee of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and only on receipt of recovery notice the Parradiso Arredamento Italia Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) assessee could come to know about the same. Further that the assessee himself was travelling out of India for business trip from 06.04.2024 to 22.07.2024 and therefore was unable to follow up the appeal to be filed in time. The crux of the submission as made by the Ld. AR which is also reflecting in the application for condonation of delay which seems to be genuine and therefore, having regard to this particular aspect of the matter, we condone the delay in preferring the appeal before us by the assessee.
The matter relates to cash deposit to the tune of Rs.67,16,000/- made during the demonetization period by the assessee in two different accounts lying with Indian Overseas Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank. However, the source of such cash deposit could not be explained by the assessee before the authorities below and today before us the Ld. AR made a candid submission that since these documents were not being placed before the Ld. CIT(A) which are otherwise germane to the issue involved in the matter of disputed cash deposit, these are required to be examined by the authorities below; hence, this mater be remitted to the file of the Ld. AO. Such submissions made by the Ld. AR has not been controverted by the Ld. DR with all her fairness.
Having heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter particularly the additional evidences so placed before us by the Ld. AR in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice we would like to give a further opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the authorities below. Hence, this appeal is disposed of by remitting this issue to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication of the same upon granting an Parradiso Arredamento Italia Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidences on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. It is also made clear that in the event the assessee does not cooperate with the Ld. AO, the said authority would be at liberty to dispose of the issue strictly in accordance with law.
The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.05.2025