MADANJEET SINGH,FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SIRHIND
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT condoned the delay of 657 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had duly explained the reasons for the delay and it was not deliberate or intentional. On merits, the Tribunal held that the matter required to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that adequate opportunity had not been afforded to the assessee and that the additions were made on account of alleged cash deposits in three bank accounts, which prima facie did not belong to the assessee. The ITAT set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the AO, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 3000/- to the PGI Poor Relief Fund. The AO was directed to consider that one of the bank accounts in question does not belong to the assessee, examine all evidence and legal contentions, and decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Madanjeet Singh, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, dated 28.12.2023, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 657 days. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made additions on account of cash deposits in three bank accounts. The assessee contended that only one of these bank accounts belonged to him, supported by a bank certificate. Both lower authorities had decided the issue ex-parte. The revenue did not seriously oppose the condonation of delay or the remanding of the matter.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay of 657 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is liable to be condoned? (Question of procedure) Assessee's contention: The delay was due to bonafide reasons and was neither deliberate nor intentional. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with an affidavit. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not seriously oppose the condonation of delay application. 2. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits in three bank accounts are sustainable, considering that only one account allegedly belongs to the assessee and the matter was decided ex-parte? Assessee's contention: Only one of the three bank accounts in question belonged to the assessee, as evidenced by a bank certificate. The lower authorities decided the issue ex-parte without affording adequate opportunity. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not seriously oppose remanding the matter back to the lower authority and relied upon the orders passed by them.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI VIJAY VARMA
PER LALIET KUMAR, JM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 28.12.2023 passed for assessment year 2017-18 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, ld. DR submitted that there is a delay of 657 days in filing the appeal for the reasons mentioned in the application for ITA 1740/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2017-28 2 condonation of delay. It was submitted that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but due to the bonafide reasons. It was submitted that
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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
