SANDEEP SINGH,JIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JIND, JIND
What were the facts?
The assessee, Sandeep Singh, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was filed with a delay of 669 days. The assessee contended that the delay was due to a heart-related illness and treatment, supported by medical prescriptions and an affidavit. The revenue, represented by the ITO, did not provide specific arguments on the delay. The assessment was reopened under section 147 as the assessee did not file a return. Information regarding cash deposits of Rs. 2,20,07,240/- in an Axis Bank account and insurance commission of Rs. 1,07,982/- from LIC was the basis for reopening. Despite notices, the assessee failed to provide explanations or evidence.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 669 days in filing the appeal, considering the bona fide and unavoidable circumstances presented by the assessee, including medical condition and treatment, supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to file submissions or documentary evidence before the AO and CIT(A) despite opportunities. The assessee expressed willingness to ensure compliance if the matter was restored to the AO. The Tribunal, considering the facts and the assessee's willingness to comply, found it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the AO for a denovo assessment. The AO was directed to ensure compliance before him. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the merits of grounds 2 to 5, as the matter was remanded for fresh assessment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal is barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay of 669 days should be condoned. (Question of procedure) 2. Whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is against facts and bad in law. (Question of law and fact) 3. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,20,07,240/- made under section 69A on account of alleged cash deposits in the assessee's current bank account. (Question of law and fact) 4. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. (Question of law and fact) 5. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC and 270A. (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The delay in filing the appeal was due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances, specifically a heart-related illness and treatment, and not due to any mala fide intention or deliberate negligence. The assessee is willing to ensure compliance if the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer (AO). Revenue's Contention: The Learned DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 194D,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271AAC,Section 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
आदेश/Order PER VIJAY VARMA, A.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 22/03/2024 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation by a delay of 669 days. In this regard, the appellant submits that the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1
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.
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 147
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 640/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 639/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 638/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Kishorbhai C Bhagtani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1), RajkotITA 999/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Malhar Nitin Bhuptani, Rajkotq vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1054/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Debashis Dutta vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Venky Re Rolling Private Limited vs. State Of Bihar Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Bihar PatnaPatna · 6 Oct 2026
- Sakti Pada Ghosh vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Madhusudan Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Midnapore Charge And OrsCalcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Fakhruddin Husainibhai @ Fakhruddin Hasainbhai vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
