BALJIT SINGH,PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BTD, PUNJAB

ITA 354/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 October 2026AY 2013-147 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals before the First Appellate Authority (NFAC) appeared reasonable, considering the substantial demands and interest imposed, which would create a heavy burden. The Tribunal believed the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeals in time. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's contention that entire credit entries in bank statements cannot be treated as income without considering withdrawals merits consideration. The claim that cheque deposits represent transfers from other bank accounts also requires factual verification. Since the assessee's case on merits was not examined at the first appellate stage due to the in limine dismissal, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the NFAC and restored the issues for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Baljit Singh, is an individual who allegedly did not file returns for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened assessments under Section 147, citing credit entries in the assessee's bank accounts as income escaping assessment. Notices under Sections 148A and 142(1) were issued, but the assessee did not comply. The AO completed assessments ex-parte under Section 144 read with Section 147, treating all credit entries as unexplained money under Section 69A. The assessee appealed to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, but the appeals were filed with a delay of 258 days. The NFAC dismissed the appeals in limine without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 258 days in filing appeals before the First Appellate Authority (NFAC) was sufficiently explained by the assessee, constituting a reasonable cause for condonation? (Question of fact and law, turning on principles of condonation of delay). Assessee's contention: The assessee, a preacher of Gurbani, is a layman unaware of assessment orders being passed. He only learned of the ex-parte assessments and dismissals when the Department pressed for recovery. The reasons for delay constitute a reasonable cause and should not be brushed aside. The NFAC's dismissal prevented the assessee from arguing the merits of the case. Revenue's contention: The assessee failed to establish the source of cash deposits/credits before the AO and did not properly explain the cause of delay in filing appeals before the NFAC. Therefore, the appeals were rightly dismissed without condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 147,Section 148A,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA And Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Jivandeep SinghKhalon, CIT-

Per: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice President:

Captioned appeals by the same assessee arise out of separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, pertaining to the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Asst. Year: 2013-14 to 2017-18

2.

The basic grievance of the assessee in these appeals is against dismissal of appeals in limine by the First Appellate Authority without condoning the delay.

3.

Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. As alleged by the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not file any r

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →