Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the order of the NFAC/CIT(A) for AY 2013-14 was delayed by 199 days. The delay was attributed to a police investigation and issues with the chartered accountant. The AO made additions of Rs. 35,44,000/- under Section 68 and denied a deduction of Rs. 68,169/- under Section 80C.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal subject to a deposit of Rs. 5,000/-. Considering the facts, the Tribunal found that the issues required adjudication and therefore remanded the case to the CIT for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the additions made by the AO and the denial of deduction were justified.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 68, 80C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.03.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 199 days in filing of the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has filed duly sworn affidavit, wherein the Assessee has stated that impugned order was received on 27.03.2024 via e-mail by his chartered accountant, who intimated the Assessee about the same. During the relevant period i.e. on 01.02.2024, the Assessee had received a letter from senior inspector Byculla Police Station to follow up in a criminal case and therefore the Assessee was required to visit the police station from time to time and day to day and to provide the explanation and somehow the complaint was finally closed on 15.06.2024. And thereafter the Assessee immediately approached his chartered accountant, who advised for filing of an appeal. Thereafter, the readable copies of the original assessment order was given to the Assessee for filing of appeal before the Tribunal as the chartered accountant was not in talking terms with the Assessee and therefore the advocate was required to communicate with the chartered accountant directly, which resulted into delay in filing the instant appeal. If the delay is not condoned then the prejudice will be caused to the Assessee. The delay has been caused due to unavoidable circumstances which are beyond the Assessee’s control. The Assessee had no malafide intention nor any deliberate act to delay the matter as the Assessee has not benefited from the delay.
We have considered the affidavit and the notice dated 01.02.2024 issued by senior police inspector Byculla Police Station with regard to the investigation carried out. The explanation with regard to visit the police station though plausible, however, after finalization/closing of the complaint by the police on dated 15.06.2024 and advising by the chartered accountant for filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the Assessee somehow remained inactive and non-vigilant and therefore liable to be suffered for latches. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality and the reasons stated by the Assessee as bonafide and unintentional, we are inclined to condone the delay of 199 days in filing of the instant appeal, however, subject o deposit of Rs.5,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the AO vide assessment order dated 28.03.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act has made the addition of Rs.35,44,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, on account of cash deposited as unexplained credit. The AO also denied the deduction of Rs.68,169/- claimed by the Assessee u/s 80C of the Act for want of evidences. The Assessee challenged the aforesaid additions before the Ld. Commissioner, who affirmed the aforesaid additions more or less on the same footing/reasoning as given by the AO.
We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the Assessee failed to prove the source of cash deposit of Rs.35,44,000/- and also failed to file the proof with regard to the deduction claimed u/s 80C of the Act and therefore is not entitled for any relief as claimed, however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as the issues involved in the instant appeal remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner in the absence of relevant documents/submissions which the Assessee failed to file, hence for the proper and just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
We also direct the Assessee to file the relevant documents in order to substantiate his claim. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2025.