HIJAM SANTA SINGH,IMPHAL vs. ITO WARD 2, IMPHAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 196/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 July 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal approach for bonafide reasons. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 195 days. The assessee explained the delay was due to consulting new tax practitioners and gathering old records. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 1,15,55,900 under Section 69A for cash deposits, which the CIT(A) had confirmed.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without hearing the assessee is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI “DB” BENCH

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Garg, AR
For Respondent: Shri PS Thuingaleng, CIT, DR
Hearing: 30.07.2026Pronounced: 30.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI “DB” BENCH (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.196/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Hijam Santa Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Imphal Sangakpham, Lamlong, Sangakpham Bazar, Imphal East, Manipur-795010 [PAN: CCBPS6952E] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ankit Garg, AR Respondent by : Shri PS Thuingaleng, CIT, DR Date of hearing : 30.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 16.07.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 195 days in filing the Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay narrating the reasons which are reproduced as under: -

“1. That I am the appellant in the above-mentioned appeal and am fully conversant with the facts of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.

ITA No.196/GTY/2026 Hijam Santa Singh; A.Y: 2018-19 2. I say that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,15,55,900/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Assessment Order dated 27.03.2023, treating the cash deposits in my current account with The Imphal Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. as unexplained money. I challenged the said order before the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi. 3. I say that the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi vide Order dated 16/07/2025 dismissed my appeal and confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,15,55,900/- under Section 69A of the Act. 4. That the present appeal is being filed with a delay of approximately 198 days from the prescribed statutory period. 5. I say that I initially consulted local tax practitioners in Imphal who were not conversant with the procedure before the ITAT. I was thereafter referred to an CA familiar with ITAT practice, and only after identifying appropriate counsel was I able to initiate the process of filing the present appeal. 6. I say that I had to collect and compile old records and documents pertaining to FY 2017-18 (AY 2018-19), including the Audit Report, Profit & Loss Account, Balance Sheet, Sales Register, Cash Book, Invoices, and Bank Statements, which took considerable time to gather. hind not filing the appeal within the prescribed time nor it could be filed immediately thereafter due to the above stated reasons and in that case your petitioner assessee would be the sufferer by not having the benefit otherwise allowable as per the facts of the case under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The meritorious matter may kindly not be thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice may kindly not be defeated and the appeal may kindly be admitted by condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 7. That the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, and there was no mala fide intention or negligence on my part. I say that the delay in filing the present appeal is not wilful, deliberate, or on account of any negligence on my part. The delay is bonafide and due to reasons beyond my control as narrated above. 8. That I say that I have a meritorious case on the merits. The cash deposits of Rs. 1,15,55,900/- in my current account represent business receipts from my declared trading activity in Cement and Batteries. The same have been duly recorded in my audited books of accounts. The provisions of Section 69A are not applicable to the facts of my case as the said deposits are not unexplained -they are backed by audited books, P&L Account, Balance Sheet, Sales Register, Cash Book, Invoices, and Bank Account Extracts.

ITA No.196/GTY/2026 Hijam Santa Singh; A.Y: 2018-19 9. I say that the tax demand of approximately Rs. 1,89,45,503/- arising from the impugned addition is causing me severe financial distress and hardship. If I am not given an opportunity to contest this matter on merits, I will suffer irreparable loss and injustice. 10. That it is settled law that while considering applications for condonation of delay, a liberal and justice-oriented approach should be adopted, particularly when the delay is bona fide and unintentional. 11. That the impugned delay in filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, therefore, is for the good and sufficient bonafide reason and hence it is prayed that the delay in filing of the appeal may kindly be condoned.” 3. The Ld. AR reiterating the averments made in the Application, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal.

4.

DR submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present appeal on delay in latches.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 195 days in filing the Appeal.

ITA No.196/GTY/2026 Hijam Santa Singh; A.Y: 2018-19 6. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 27.03.2023 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 27.03.2023, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 16.07.2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 16.07.2025, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

7.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee.

8.

Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

9.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with

ITA No.196/GTY/2026 Hijam Santa Singh; A.Y: 2018-19 a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

10.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 30.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30.07.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →