Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order dated 27/03/2025 was dismissed due to a delay of 799 days. The assessee claims they did not receive notice from the CIT(A) and thus could not attend the proceedings or justify the delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee must justify the delay before the CIT(A) as the delay occurred prior to the CIT(A)'s proceedings. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the delay issue afresh after considering evidence and affidavits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, and if so, to decide the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
148, 68, 115BBE, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE
Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 27/03/2025 by NFAC, Delhi, [hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2017-18.
The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing of 1% appeal on considering the reasonable cause and bonafide reasons that had precluded the appellant to file the 1" appeal in time; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the reasonable cause that had precluded the appellant to participate in the re-assessment proceeding; 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148 is bad in law, since had been issued in mechanical manner, on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and in absence of tangible material, without reason to believe of escapement of income; 4.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made u/s.68 r.w.s 11SBBE of Rs.17,22,42,000/- of alleged cash deposits made with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd; 5.0 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition u/s.68 of alleged cash deposits made in M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd of Rs.17,22,42,000/- and ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being: a) The appellant had not made the disputed cash deposits in the account maintained with M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd; b) The appellant categorically denies and disowns the disputed transactions, since the disputed cash deposits had not been made by the appellant; c) There does not exist any contrary material/evidence to establish the alleged cash deposits allegedly made by the appellant; d) The copies of contrary material, evidence and statements of 3rd parties and an opportunity of cross examination had not been provided to the appellant; e) The Ld. AO had not conducted any independent enquiry/investigation to establish the cash deposits allegedly made by the appellant; 6.0 Without prejudice, the provisions of Sec. 115BBE charging the tax @ 60%shall apply only on the transactions entered on or after 15/12/2016, being the date of granting the assent of President of India.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”