Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.04.2021 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], for assessment year 2017- 18, raising following grounds:
Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey 2 ITA No. 2120/M/2021
1. The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 1,51,500/ The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 1,51,500/- The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 1,51,500/ (Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Only) u/s 69A (Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Only (Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Only of Income Tax act, 1961 to the total returned income without of Income Tax act, 1961 to the total returned income without of Income Tax act, 1961 to the total returned income without enquiring into the facts and circumstances of the case and provision enquiring into the facts and circumstances of the case and provision enquiring into the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of the Income Tax act, 1961 and rules made thereunder. of the Income Tax act, 1961 and rules made thereunder. of the Income Tax act, 1961 and rules made thereunder. 2. 2) The Assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 2) The Assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 1,51,500/- 2) The Assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. ignoring the CBDT Instruction No: 03/2017 dated 21st February, ignoring the CBDT Instruction No: 03/2017 dated 21st February, ignoring the CBDT Instruction No: 03/2017 dated 21st February, 2017 regarding Cash Deposit during the Demonetization period 2017 regarding Cash Deposit during the Demonetization period 2017 regarding Cash Deposit during the Demonetization period and CIT (A) also confirmed the same without appreciating the said and CIT (A) also confirmed the same without appreciating the said and CIT (A) also confirmed the same without appreciating the said CDT Instruction No 03/2017. CDT Instruction No 03/2017.
At the outset, we find At the outset, we find that appeal has been filed that appeal has been filed with delay of 175 days. The date of communication of order of Ld. CIT(A) in Form date of communication of order of Ld. CIT(A) in Form date of communication of order of Ld. CIT(A) in Form No. 36 has been reported No. 36 has been reported as 01.04.2021 and therefore appeal was 01.04.2021 and therefore appeal was due for filing on 01.06.2021 due for filing on 01.06.2021, whereas appeal has been filed on whereas appeal has been filed on 21.11.2021. We find t 21.11.2021. We find that the appeal has been filed within the period hat the appeal has been filed within the period extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in No. 21 of 2022 in suo moto writ petition writ petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, wherein it is directed that period from 15/03/2020 till 2020, wherein it is directed that period from 15/03/2020 till 2020, wherein it is directed that period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all
Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey 3 ITA No. 2120/M/2021 judicial or quashi judicial proceedings. quashi judicial proceedings. Accordingly gly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication admitted for adjudication.
Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that th Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that th assessee could not represent assessee could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A) due to the fact before the Ld. CIT(A) due to the fact that assessee was in police custody during the period that assessee was in police custody during the period that assessee was in police custody during the period. The Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee is willing to assessee submitted that the assessee is willing to assessee submitted that the assessee is willing to represent before the Ld. CIT(A) and file evidence in support of its represent before the Ld. CIT(A) and file evidence in support of its represent before the Ld. CIT(A) and file evidence in support of its claim of source of deposits of claim of source of deposits of ₹1,51,500/- in his bank account which in his bank account which has been held as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, has been held as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, has been held as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer. 61 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer.
In view of the facts and circumstances that the assessee was In view of the facts and circumstances that the assessee was In view of the facts and circumstances that the assessee was prevented from reasonable cause in representing before the Ld. prevented from reasonable cause in representing before the Ld. prevented from reasonable cause in representing before the Ld. CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the matter the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the matter ex ex-parte without any explanation by the assessee. In the interest of substantial justice, y explanation by the assessee. In the interest of substantial justice, y explanation by the assessee. In the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh. The assessee is also directed to file the CIT(A) for deciding afresh. The assessee is also directed to file the CIT(A) for deciding afresh. The assessee is also directed to file the Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey 4 ITA No. 2120/M/2021 necessary evidence in support of its claim bef necessary evidence in support of its claim before the Ld. CIT(A) and ore the Ld. CIT(A) and co-operate in disposal of the appeal. The grounds raised by the operate in disposal of the appeal. The grounds raised by the operate in disposal of the appeal. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.