Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) which upheld additions made by the AO for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee had initially failed to respond to notices and later failed to remove deficiencies pointed out by the CIT(A), leading to dismissal of the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons for delay to be bonafide. The matter was restored to the AO for denovo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal delay should be condoned and if the matter should be restored to the AO for denovo assessment.
Sections Cited
143(2), 148, 142(1), 147, 144, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
(A.Y.2012-13) Shah Hasan, 157, Mushtarak Miranpur, Jansath, Uttar Pradesh 251315 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: AIRPH-7471-F बनाम Vs. National Faceless Appeal Center, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Delhi 110001 अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : None �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 20/05/2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 19.10.2023, for assessment year 2012-13.
The appeal is time barred by 408 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal supported by an affidavit. After perusing the application for condonation of delay, I am satisfied that delay in filing of present appeal is un-intentional and was for the reasons stated in the application (AY 2012-13) which appears to be bonafide. Hence, delay of 408 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.
Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department submits that the assessee neither responded to the notices issued u/s. 143(2) or 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Even subsequent notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act remained unanswered by the assessee. Hence, the Assessing Officer (AO) was constrained to complete the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. The assessee had deposited Rs.38,87,000/- in his saving bank account, the assessee failed to substantiate the source of money deposited in his bank account. Hence, the AO made addition of Rs. 38,87,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. In First appeal, the assessee failed to reply the notices issued by the CIT(A). The CITA), therefore, upheld findings of the AO and dismissed the appeal. The assessee has failed to substantiate source of cash deposits before the lower authorities.
Submissions made by Id. DR heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The assessment for AY 2012-13 in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of AIR information that the assessee has deposited Rs.38,87,000/- in cash in his saving bank account during Financial Year 2011-12. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 26.03.2019 was issued and served on the assessee. However, there was no response to said notice by the assessee and no return of income was filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act either. Subsequently, the assessee in response to notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act filed written submissions explaining the source of cash deposits in the bank account. As per contentions of the assessee, the assessee had entered into an agreement to sale of agricultural land for a consideration of Rs.56,18,750/-. The cash advance received as part of consideration was deposited in the bank account. The Assessing Officer rejected submissions of (AY 2012-13) the assessee as contentions of the assessee were unsubstantiated and made additions of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued three notices to the assessee i.e. on 18.01.2021, 11.02.2021 and 05.10.2023, to remove deficiency in filing of appeal. Since, the assessee failed to remove the deficiency as pointed by the CIT(A), the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine. Hence, the present appeal.
Considering entire facts of the case and documents on record, I deem it appropriate to restore this matter to the AO for denovo assessment. The AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law before passing fresh assessment order.
The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the AO, without fail and shall furnish relevant evidences to substantiate its contentions.