TIRAL SHADAP,MEGHALAYA vs. ITO W-2 SHILLONG, SHILLONG

For that the learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in holding validity of assessment order which was bad in law having been made on the basis of Notice issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act beyond the time limit prescribed under 1st Proviso to section 149(1).

The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of Appeal."

Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened based on information that the assessee had deposited cash of ₹84,80,000/- in a savings bank account during AY 2015-16 but had not filed the return of income. Consequently, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 04.04.2022, in response to which the assessee filed the return of income on 26.05.2022 declaring NIL income. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(26) of the Act, stating that the cash deposits were proceeds from agricultural activities and a coal business, and submitted a certificate of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. However, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') rejected the exemption claimed, observing that the submitted agricultural land map lacked the seal of a competent authority, the job card was in another person's name without a signature or seal, and the assessee failed to prove that the income actually accrued or arose from any specified area, the income from which was exempt. Due to non-compliance with several notices issued and on the failure of the assessee to provide satisfactory explanations or sufficient supporting documents regarding the source of the deposits, the Ld. AO completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 25.09.2023, treating the cash deposit of ₹84,80,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added it to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the legal grounds raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, holding that the amended time limit of ten years under the Finance Act, 2021 was applicable and that the Juri ictional Assessing Officer continued to hold concurrent juri iction with the Faceless Assessing Officer. However, on the merits of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the impugned assessment was passed ex parte and the assessee had raised several factual contentions for the first time which required necessary verification, therefore, deeming it just and proper to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for a fresh assessment after providing due opportunity and conducting necessary inquiries, the Ld. CIT(A) set aside the assessment. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) set aside the action of the Ld. AO and allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. DR to the last para of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in which the assessment was restored to the Ld. AO for factual and legal contention. Before us it was also stated that the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act was passed on 25.09.2023 and the order giving effect to the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed on 14.02.2026, the appeal against which is pending before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR stated that the legal issue was not decided which ought to have been decided.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 374 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining that the assessee was confused by the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) restoring the matter back to the Ld. AO for a fresh assessment, which created uncertainty over whether to file an appeal before the ITAT on the legal points decided by the Ld. CIT(A) or to submit all contentions directly before the Ld. AO during the fresh assessment, ultimately resulting in an unintentional delay of 374 days in filing the present appeal. We note that the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) are categorical and not confusing and the assessment proceeding is remanded before the Ld. AO as per the powers available to the Ld. CIT(A) now, and therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication as there is no sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 374 days and the Ld. AO has already passed the order giving effect to the directions of the Ld. CIT(A), which is pending in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since there is a delay which has not been justified and there is no sufficient cause for the delay of more than one year as the reason for the delay is stated to be the confusion caused by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) whereas there is no such confusion apparent in the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) and the findings are very specific and categorical; therefore, there is no justification for condoning the delay. The application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected and the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay without going into the merits of the case.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal. Order pronounced in the open Court on 3rd June, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 03.06.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT-

CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati.

Guard File. //// By order