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 did not present specific arguments on the delay. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 due to information about cash deposits of Rs. 2,20,07,240/- in the assessee's bank account and insurance commission of Rs. 1,07,982/-. The assessee failed to provide explanations or supporting evidence despite notices. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the cash deposits as unexplained under Section 69A and added the insurance commission under Section 194D, assessing total income at Rs. 2,21,15,222/-. The CIT(A) upheld these additions as the assessee provided no submissions or evidence.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 669 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's submission that it was due to a bona fide and unavoidable heart-related illness and treatment. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to provide any explanation or documentary evidence regarding the cash deposits and insurance commission before the AO and CIT(A). However, considering the assessee's willingness to ensure compliance if the matter was restored to the AO, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the file of the AO for a denovo assessment. The Tribunal directed the assessee to ensure compliance before the AO. The specific findings on the validity of reopening under Section 147, the addition under Section 69A, the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, and the initiation of penalty proceedings under Sections 271AAC and 270A were not adjudicated on merits, as the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes with a direction for denovo assessment. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of significant delay, if the assessee shows willingness to comply and the matter can be effectively adjudicated denovo, the Tribunal may restore the case to the AO.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned? (Procedural issue turning on facts and principles of condonation of delay). 2. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid? (Question of law). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,20,07,240/- made under Section 69A on account of alleged cash deposits in the bank account? (Question of mixed law and fact). 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C? (Question of law). 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under Sections 271AAC and 270A? (Question of law). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a bona fide and unavoidable heart-related illness and treatment. The assessee expressed willingness to ensure compliance if the matter was restored to the AO for denovo assessment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue 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 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 →- Rajesh Kumar Shaw vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge And OrsCalcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreya Steel Corporation vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, Bally And Salkia Charge And OrsCalcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreya Steel Corporation vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Revenue, Bally And Salkia Charge And OrsCalcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Samir Halder vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Shaw vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge And OrsCalcutta · 6 Oct 2026
