SANGITA MANOJ BIYANI,JALGAON vs. ITO,WARD 2(1), JALGAON, JALGAON

The brief facts of the case are that, the income Tax Department as per the RMS- Non-filing of Return Module of the Insight Portal found that the assessee has made cash deposits in the three bank accounts aggregating to Rs. 58,12,550/- and the assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and the A.O has followed the due process of law and passed the order u/sec 148A(d) of the Act and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act on 23.03.2023. Further notice u/sec142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on various dates and a show cause notice was issued and there was no compliance. The A.O find that the assessee has not made submissions with supporting sources and evidences on the disputed issue of sources of cash deposits in spite of providing adequate opportunities of hearing and finally the A.O considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and has issued notice u/sec133(6) of the Act on the banks and obtained bank statements and made addition of unexplained cash deposits u/sec69A of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.58,12,550/-and passed the order u/sec147 rws1444 r.w.s144B of the Act dated 28.12.2023. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) found that there is a delay of 42 days in filing the appeal and the assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons for the delay. He further did not condone the delay and dismissed the assessee’s appeal inlimine. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the facts and valid reasons of the assessee being a senior citizen as mentioned in the Form.No.35 and the delay in filling the appeal was neither deliberate nor wanton act, but due to lack of knowledge and age factor of the assessee. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has a good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate with material evidences before the lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no proper compliance by the assessee in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the delay in filling the appeal was not explained with reasonable cause. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging addition u/sec69A of the Act made by the Assessing Officer and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the assessee in Form.No.35 made a request for condonation of delay in filling the appeal. Therefore, considering the facts, provisions and the condonation of delay request and are of the opinion that there is a reasonable cause in filing of the appeal with delay and there is no benefit derived in causing delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ofB. MadhuriGoudvrs. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, has held that the following principles must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay; (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.

The Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji& others (167 ITR 471) (SC) has observed as under :

We respectfully follow the observations and ratio of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited(supra) and find that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) by the assessee is supported with sufficient cause and therefore pragmatic approach should have been condoned. Further considered and the delay is considering the principles of natural justice, the assessee shall be provided with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case along with the evidences and explanations. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीयप्रतितिति,आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण, “B” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File. 5. ////