Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 127 days, claiming unawareness of the order. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 15,73,000 based on a credit entry in the bank account, as the assessee failed to provide details.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, subject to a deposit, and held that the issue of the credit entry needed proper adjudication. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for consideration of the reply and documents.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the addition made by the AO requires further adjudication by the AO.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 46A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 14.02.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 127 days in filing the instant appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by a duly sworn affidavit, mainly stating that the assessee was unaware of the passing of the impugned order and came to know about the same only upon receiving the proposed levy of penalty and recovery notice of the outstanding demand arising from the impugned assessment order. The assessee immediately consulted a tax consultant, who advised for filing an appeal before the Tribunal, which was then filed by the tax consultant, albeit with a delay of 127 days, due to professional preoccupation. The delay was neither intentional nor mala fide but occurred due to the aforesaid reasons. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that, in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned.
On the contrary, the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the assessee and submitted that the assessee failed to demonstrate a plausible and reasonable cause for condonation of delay.
The reasons stated by the assessee for condonation of delay, appears to be reasonable and plausible and unintentional and therefore for just and proper decision case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to condone the delay, however subject to deposit of Rs. 5,500/- in the Revenue Department under "Other Head" within 30 days from today. Thus, the delay is condoned subject to deposit of Rs. 5,500/- as directed above,
Coming to the merits of the case it is observed that in this case, the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 24.05.2023 u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act, has made the addition of 15,73,000/-, mainly for the reason that despite asking for specific details regarding the credit entry of 15,73,000/- dated 06.12.2016 in the bank account maintained with Jan Seva Sahakari Bank (Borivali) Ltd., the assessee failed to submit any reply or documentary evidence, as called for.
4. Admittedly such details were not submitted before the Assessing Officer but filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner, after considering the reply given to Column No. 12 of Form No. 35-regarding whether any documentary evidence other than those produced during the course of proceedings before the Income-tax Authority, has been filed in terms of Rule 46A-noticed that the assessee answered "YES". However, the Ld. Commissioner observed that the assessee failed to file an application for admission of fresh evidence during the course of the appellate proceedings and thus he not being satisfied with the fresh evidence uploaded during the appellate proceedings without fulfilling the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, upheld the aforesaid addition by dismissing appeal of the assessee.
This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As observed above, the assessee, in support of the credit entry of ₹15,73,000/-, duly submitted the relevant documents before the Ld. Commissioner in the form of fresh evidence, but without making an appropriate application, as required under Rule 46A. However, it is also a fact that the issue relating to the credit entry of the aforesaid amount, specifically in the absence of relevant documents and reply, also remained to be adjudicated in its proper perspective and manner by the Assessing Officer. Thus, for just and proper decision of the case, substantial justice and fair play, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer {JAO}, being an exception, for consideration of the reply and documents with regard to the credit entry of the aforesaid amount, to be filed by the assessee, who undertakes to file the same.
Thus, with the aforesaid direction, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.11.2025.