SHIV KUMAR JAISWAL,PADRAUNA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASST CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 172/VNS/2024Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 July 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and restored the file to the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to explain the cash deposits. The assessee was cautioned to comply with the AO's directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case and added cash deposits of Rs. 14,78,700/- as unexplained income under Section 69A. The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed due to delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee deserves another opportunity to explain cash deposits when the initial appeal was dismissed for delay, and if the ex-parte assessment order should be set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144B,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC(1),Section 271B,Section 271F,Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CIRCUIT BENCH (SMC

Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH (SMC), VARANASI BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.172/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shiv Kumar Jaiswal v. NFAC, Income Tax Department Kandu Tola Sahabganj, Padrauna Kushinagar (U.P) TAN/PAN:AMEPJ7387B (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 24.07.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. As per information available with the Income Tax Department on its Income-tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.14,78,700/- in his Bank Account No.32845711700 maintained with State Bank of India, Dharamshala Road Branch, Padrauna, Kushinagar during the demonetization period. The case of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration was reopened by issuing Notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income Tax

ITA No.172/VNS/2024 Page 2 of 6

Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act’) on 28.03.2021. However, the assessee did not respond to the Notice issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the AO issued Notices under section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee, requiring the assessee to furnish details/documents/information relating to the cash deposits made by him. In response, the assessee filed his return of income on 07.03.2022 declaring a total income of Rs.2,78,360/- and furnished the audit Report. Subsequently, the AO obtained statement of Current Bank Account No.32845711700 from the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mumbai Main Office. Since the assessee had not provided any explanation and source of deposits, the AO treated the cash deposits of Rs.14,78,700/- as unexplained money of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,57,060/-.

2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 274 read with section 271AAC(1), 271B, 271F and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately.

ITA No.172/VNS/2024 Page 3 of 6

2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being a delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority.

2.3 Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal:

1.

Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the delay in filing appeal and in discussing the appeal. 2. Because the delay was due to the negligence of the counsel who had been dealing with the case of the appellant and did not make compliance of the notices in time and in not filing appeal in time. Negligence of the counsel is reasonable cause/sufficient cause and the delay in filing appeal by the other counsel whom the appellant engaged was liable to be condoned. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in giving importance to the word "reasonable cause" and "sufficient cause ". 4. Because from the facts mentioned in the condonation application, it was clear that total negligence was on the part of the previous counsel, who had been dealing with the case, which was sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal earlier. 5. Because the delay was liable to be condone in the interest of justice. There was no fault of the appellant.

ITA No.172/VNS/2024 Page 4 of 6

6.

Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.14,78,700/- being the amount deposited during demonetization period (09-11-2016 to 31-12-2016). Total deposit during this period was of Rs.12,63,700/- only which was out of sale proceeds out of which only Rs.2,25,000/- on 11-11-2016, Rs.72,500/- on 20-12-2016 and Rs.80,000/-on 29-12-2016 were of high demonetization notes (Rs.1000 & 500 of demonetized notes) totaling Rs.3,77,500/-. The bank deposit counterfoils were sufficient proof to established the facts regarding deposit of high demonetized notes. 7. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in not calling for the remand report from income tax officer. 8. Because, as the assessment order was passed ex parte, it is the interest of justice the assessment order as well as the penalty order and appellate orders (CIT Appeals) are liable to be set aside. 9. That the order passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) being a non-speaking order and devoid of application of mind, be set 3.0 None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, an application dated 11.05.2026, seeking adjournment, on behalf of the assessee, was placed before me citing the reason that the assessee was presently out of the Country in connection with prior commitments and will be returning to India on 15.05.2026 and that due to this, the Counsel was not in a position to attend and argue the case and, therefore, the appeal may be adjourned. However, looking into

ITA No.172/VNS/2024 Page 5 of 6

facts of the case, I reject the adjournment application and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

4.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R., supporting the orders of the authorities below, submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

5.0 I have heard the ld. Senior Departmental Representative and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that the order passed by the AO was ex-parte qua the assessee and the NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being a delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to explain the cash deposits and, therefore, I set aside the order of the NFAC and restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Assessing Officer would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.

ITA No.172/VNS/2024 Page 6 of 6

6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/07/2026.

Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:23/07/2026 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order

Assistant Registrar/DDO

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →