Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a government employee, filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 1,73,720. During assessment, deposits of Rs. 7.96 lakhs and Rs. 2.25 lakhs were found in his bank and credit card accounts respectively. The AO assessed the total income at Rs. 11.97 lakhs.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation and the interest of justice, but imposed a token cost. The matter was remanded to the first appellate authority to allow the assessee to furnish documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration of documentary evidence.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 31.01.2023 which has emanated from the order of AO, Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Baramulla, passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act, vide order dated 27.11.2018.
Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is belatedly filed by 656 (six hundred fifty six days). The assessee has filed an application for condonation explaining the delay due to the reasons that the order has been communicated on 31.01.2023 in the income tax portal but no copy of the Assessment Year: 2011-12 2 same has been issued or served in the e-mail id of the assessee. The due date of appeal has already expired and the same appeal could not be filed because of ignorance of the assessee legal provisions and also on account of technical incompetency to look into the income tax portal. As such, he prayed for condoning the delay of 656 days and for admission of this appeal to be taken up for hearing on merits. The ld. DR vehemently objected and has submitted that no cause has been shown by the assessee for this extraordinary delay and the same is not bona fide however, he leaves it to the consideration of the Hon’ble Bench. 2.1 We have considered the submissions stated in the condonation and have also heard the ld. AR of the assessee present in the court on the ground of delay but we are not at all convinced regarding the reasons putforth for the same. However, in the interest of justice, we condone the said delay of 656 days and we admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 2.2 However, we also consider this to be a fit case where cost is required to be imposed because of total intentional neglect on the part of the assessee which cannot be ruled out. As such, we impose a token cost of Rs.5 (five thousands only) to be paid “Prime Minister National Relief Fund”, within 15 days from the date of received communication (evidence to be submitted to the JAO).
There are three grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Form 36 and the main grievance of the assessee relates to the dismissal of the appeal by the ld. first Assessment Year: 2011-12 3 appellate without adjudication on merits and he prays for an opportunity to explain his case.
Brief facts of the case, are that the assessee is government employee working in the office of Assistant Director FCS & CA Department, Baramulla as Tehsil Supply Officer, and has filed his regular return declaring a total income of Rs.1,73,720/-. After claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A.
In course of assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee has deposits and credits amounting to Rs.7.96 lakhs in his bank a/c with J& K Bank A/c No.XXXXX13402. 5.1 It was further observed that the assessee has maintained credit card account no. xxxx525129 and has deposited an amount of Rs.2.25 lakhs during the year under appeal. 5.2 In absence of any satisfactory explanation to the said deposit, assessment has been completed on a total income of Rs.11.97 lakhs (with an addition of Rs.10.23 lakhs to the returned income).
The matter carried in first appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT (A) in absence of any response or submissions to notice issued on seven separate occasions (as evident from para – 4 of the appellate order).
Now the assessee is before the Tribunal and has filed documentary evidences consisting of bank statement and copies of confirmation of loans taken from the Assessment Year: 2011-12 4 parties one Mr. Qamar Iqbal Zargar and Mr. Bilal Ahmad Mir alongwith their id and confirmations which are produced below:
He prayed for an opportunity of hearing to explain his case before the ld. first appellate authority.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) but has no objection if the documentary evidences are verified afresh.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that these documents which are now being submitted before the tribunal has never been produced before the lower authorities. 10.1 As such, the matter is being remanded back to the file of the ld. first appellate authority to allow an opportunity to the assessee to furnish the documentary evidences with submissions, and thereafter to consider the same and to dispose of the appeal on merits of the case, after verifying the authenticity and the genuineness of the documentary evidences, submitted and necessary report may be obtained ( as per procedure) regarding creditworthiness of the loan creditors.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.