G K ENTERPRISES,ROPAR, PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), ROPAR, ROPAR,PUNJAB

ITA 479/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 October 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the well-settled principle that technicalities should not impede substantial justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to contest the case on merits before the Ld. AO. The Tribunal held that the lapse on the part of the assessee in causing the delay needs to be compensated. Accordingly, the appeal was admitted, and the AO was directed to frame a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case forthwith. This opportunity was made subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the receipt of the order to the Poor Patient Relief Fund of PGI Hospital, Chandigarh. Proof of payment was to be furnished to the AO, who would then proceed with the fresh assessment. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of the addition made by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, G. K. Enterprises, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, dated 29-12-2023, which dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of over 1.5 years. The original assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on best judgment basis under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 24-03-2022, making an addition of Rs.451.17 Lacs on account of cash deposits. The ITAT registry noted a delay of 396 days in filing the present appeal, for which the assessee sought condonation. The assessee also claimed the delay was due to bona fide reasons beyond its control and stated it could substantiate the sources of cash deposits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 396 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the assessee's plea of bona fide reasons and circumstances beyond control, and the potential to substantiate the cash deposit sources. Assessee's Contention: The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to bona fide reasons and circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The assessee is in a position to substantiate the sources of cash deposits. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Ld. CIT-DR, opposed the condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM

RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA (Judicial Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 29-12-2023 in the matter of an assessment as framed by Ld. AO on best judgment basis u/s 147 r.w.s 144 on 24-03-2022 making addition of cash deposit for Rs.451.17 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of condonation of delay of more than 1.5 years. Aggrieved, the

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →