Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) regarding assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed late by 400 days, with the assessee citing illiteracy, COVID-19, and unawareness of the new faceless assessment process as reasons for the delay. The assessee had declared total income of Rs.28,64,623/-.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing landmark Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been provided sufficient opportunity for being heard and that the matter needed to be verified and revisited at the AO level. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the case should be remanded for de novo assessment due to lack of opportunity for the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 68, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 11.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act “] dated 13.12.2019 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2012-13. P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2012-13 Mahesh Rajaram Kukreja, Thane 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
1. The Order passed by Hon CIT(A) as well as Assessing officer is erroneous on the fact and in the eyes of law, based on the fact and circumstances of case he ought to have accepted the returned income.
The learned A.O did not consider the evidences/documents/records submitted in his assessment and perform Assessment order seems clearly negligence and undue hardship on assesseeconsidering case of fact before any addition he should consider all necessary documents and submission and then proceed for opinion but AΟ ποι considered same which itself prove from his assessment order, AO mentioned in Order that assessee failed to furnish evidences that M/s Kushal biotech limited has offered the alleged sale proceed for taxation, while in online submission during proceeding a complete set of Income tax return along with tax audit report of M/s Kushal bio tech limited submitted before AO and in that return said sale proceeding very well declared as income by M/s Kushal biotech, that itself shows highly negligence in performing Assessment. Further Hon CIT(A) also without taken the case on Merits or without considering the document submitted in original assessment proceeding taken the best judgement merely taking the base that Assessee not participated in Faceless hearing that is due to his illiteracy, COVID Lockdown and unawareness of Assessee from said new faceless proceeding under Newly launched Income tax portal.
3. Hon CIT(A) and Learned Assessing officer(AO) have vested power of examination and detailed investigation, so both should exercise all power to reach a conclusion before making any addition, hence in case of fact M/s Kushal biotech is key beneficiary hence he should also cross examined along with concern next buyer of said property who made payment to M/s Kushal biotech, being an assessee we have provided copy of his IT return, Tax audit report etc. and double taxation on same income is not in justice with assessee in eyes of law. We have submitted Audit report and copy of return of M/s Kushal Biotech Limited to Learned AO where said sale receipt clearly shown by him in his filing of return as Income but said document neither taken in consideration by Assessing officer which is submitted during hearing of proceeding, Further Hon CIT(A) also ignore the said fact and decision of appeal also given merely focus only on the non submission of the Assessee while it is clear from record that double taxation cannot be justified for one single income. 4. Witness of Sale deed should also be crossly examined for understanding the circumstances and fact in such sale deed executed as there were undue pressure on assessee to execute the sale deed by M/s “Kushal Biotech Limited” as said land belongs to him indirectly and he had vested right in that land, further buyer of Property Mr. Arun Patil also to be examined for confirmation because he also given his confirmation that only Rs 20,00,000 is valid consideration as “Full and Final Payment” said confirmation receipt also not consider during P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2012-13 Mahesh Rajaram Kukreja, Thane assessment proceeding. Learned CIT(A) as well as AO both not taken any action in the said manner to investigate the case on the face and circumstances.
5. The Learned AO and Hon. CIT(Appeal) is not justified in addition of unexplained cash credit as submission made online not properly considered and it appears from his order that he even not go through from submission by assessee, Registered Sale deed itself confirm that partial consideration is given in cash, but learned A.O mistakenly not considered the same fact, Further Learned CIT(A) also given verdict on the basis of Assessment order, where prima facie mistake clearly visible in Assessment order itself.
6. The learned AO and Hon CIT(A) in his first addition merely relying on sale deed but in other addition another sale deed that clearly shown Cash receipts against consideration but not acceptable by learned AO seems injustice on same parameter, hence addition in cash as unexplained income is wrong in the eyes of law and justice.
A detailed Cash book submitted for Cash deposited and withdrawn with opening balances and closing balances that is clearly showing Positive and sufficient cash in hand and in various judgment it has been considered enough documents if sufficient cash in hand but same is not considered by learned AO in justifying the Cash credit and entire cash deposit of said financial year has added back in income seems undue hardship and learned AO not justifying with assessee in eyes of law.
8. The Learned AO also did not allowed / demand any additional evidence/ documents/ cross examination for payment directly made to M/s Kushal Biotech Limited, and how he have vested right in said land and without proper opportunity of being heard order passed that is more than four time of the income declared in return by assessee.
At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal filed late by 400 days. An application seeking condonation of the delay in filing has been filed by the assessee alongwith an affidavit stating that he is an uneducated person not conversant with law. He came to know of passing of the appellate order on dated 21.01.2025 for which he intended to appeal against. But, due to covid issue, tax adviser could not be contacted which resulted in the delay. He requested to allow for condonation of delay due P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2012-13 Mahesh Rajaram Kukreja, Thane to his unawareness having lack of educational background and not technical friendly with computer, and latest technology. It is requested to request to condone the delay which is bonafide and unintentional.
On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing of the present appeal was not intentional but due to unavoidable and sufficient cause. In this connection, reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon’ble Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) that, “ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late……..Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated….Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period…. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” We therefore, condone the delay.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual filed his return declaring total income of Rs.28,64,623/-. As per information he had deposited cash of Rs.29,12,000/- in bank account with Janta Sahkari Bank Ltd. and also he sold certain immovable property valued at Rs.1,28,70,000/-. The case was reopened and finally the assessment was completed by making additions i)Short Term Capital Gain of P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2012-13 Mahesh Rajaram Kukreja, Thane Rs.1,08,70,000/- ii) Cash deposit u/s 68 of Rs.30,05,000/- and iii) Income from other sources of Rs.1,19,700/-.
In the subsequent appeal, there was no compliance by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee was provided opportunities by issuing notice u/s. 250 of the Act to substantiate the grounds of appeal by submitting documentary evidences on as many as four occasions but he did not make any submission till the date of passing of the order. The attitude of the assessee indicated that he was not interested in filing any details and avail the opportunities. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on account of non prosecution.
7. Before us, the ld.AR pleaded to remand the case back to the AO for de novo assessment with the assurance that the assessee would duly comply with the notices in this regard. The ld.DR however, objected to the request citing repeated non compliance.
Taking into consideration all relevant facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the scales of justice demand that the matter should be verified and revisited at the level of AO and accordingly, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded back to the file of AO for de novo assessment by him while applying the principles of P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2012-13 Mahesh Rajaram Kukreja, Thane natural justice after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11/09/2025. PAWAN SINGH PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)