Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an elderly pensioner with dementia, failed to furnish his return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under Section 144, making additions based on cash deposits during demonetization, as no cogent explanation was provided.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on technical grounds (delay) without adjudicating on merits. Considering the assessee's condition, the Tribunal granted another opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without considering the merits, and if a de-novo assessment is warranted considering the assessee's condition.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 142(1), 139, 69A, 115BBE, 156, 234A, 271AAC, 272A(1)(d), 249(2), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 8.10.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069520498(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
3. The brief facts of the case as stated by the AR of the assessee is that during the relevant period the assessee being a retired pensioner who had been diagnosed of having onset of Dementia due to his elderly age, which was responsible for forgetting many important details of his life and most of every day essentials. The assessee was bedridden due to other health issues associated with lots of memory and was supported by his wife i.e. the legal representative. The notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 30.1.2018 by the AO calling for true and correct return of income in respect of which the assessee is assessable under the IT Act during the previous year, relevant for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee contended that he has filed a return of income through the e-filing portal on 10.10.2019. However, the AO noted that assessee has failed to furnish the return of income either u/s 139 of the Act and in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that assessee has received salary/pension of Rs.2,78,396/- and earned bank interest of Rs.2,04,374/- as well as deposited the cash amounting to Rs.15,90,000/- during the demonetization period. In the absence of acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the source of money and the income earned during the year has not been offered and taxes due thereupon has not been paid, the entire income is assessed U/s 144 of the Act amounting to Rs.20,72,770/- and tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act @ 60% and 25% surcharge.
3.1 Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 144 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC observed that the appeal was filed on 10.2.2020 with the delay of 79 days that implies the assessee’s attitude and deliberate inaction on the part of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC held that as the appeal filed is not in conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
3.2 Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.
The ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that before AO, the assessee could not represent his case due to his elderly age and had been diagnosed of having the onset of dementia. Further the ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Further, ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessee has infact filed his return of income in response to notice, which has not been considered by the AO.
The ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the order of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is undisputed fact that the AO has passed order u/s 144 of the Act by stating the reason that assessee failed to furnish return of income u/s 139 of the Act as well as u/s 142 of the Act, whereas the ld. A.R. of the assessee claimed before us that the assessee has infact filed his return of income through e filing portal on 10.10.2019. Further, we also find that ld. CIT(A)
Late Mr. Madurai Ananthraj Jagadish Bangalore Page 6 of 6 has not adjudicated the case on merits and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the short delay of 79 days in filing the appeal. Being so, in the interest of justice and fair play as well as requested by ld. A.R. of the assessee and considering the disease, the assessee is suffering due to his old age, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate his claim and accordingly we remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of AO for de-novo consideration and decide the case in accordance with law. Needless to say reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant record/documents/information/submission before the AO as & when called for to substantiate his claim. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.