SHRI TARIQ AHMAD DAR,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

Condonation of Delay: This appeal is filed by the assessee belatedly by 380 (three hundred eighty days) and the assessee has filed an application along with an affidavit , explaining the delay to have arisen because of misinformation by his earlier counsel informing the assessee that the appeal is already filed ( when the same was actually not ) , and the assessee being technically ignorant about computer operations, has fully relied and believed his counsel , until the information was proved to be wrong , which prompted the assessee to appoint a new counsel and file this present appeal belatedly on 15/05/2025 . He prays for condonation of delay and for admission of the appeal for hearing on merits. The Ld DR objects to the same on account of the long delay but leaves it to the discretion of the Hon’ble Bench.

Even though we do not find the reasons for the delay to be very convincing and sufficient, but in the interest of justice we condone the same and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.

However, we consider it to be a fit case for imposition of costs and as such we impose a token cost of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) on the assessee, payable to the credit of “Prime Ministers National Relief Fund”, to be deposited within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order (evidence to be filed before JAO).

There are five grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form – 36 , and the main grievance of the assessee is against the rejection of the appeal by the Ld. first appellate authority by refusing to admit the same for adjudication on merits , on account of non-payment of advance tax coupled with the fact of non - filing of regular return , in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, thereby attracting the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act.

Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has deposited cash (SBN) during demonetization period amounting to Rs. 16.72 lakhs and has not submitted any return neither in regular course nor in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, and in absence of any response to subsequent notices issued, the assessment has been completed ex-parte on a total income of Rs. 27.29 lakhs (with an addition of Rs.16.72 lakhs u/s 69A being the deposit of SBN plus an amount of Rs. 10.57 lakhs being 8% of remaining deposits of Rs. 1.32 crores, in bank account).

The Ld AR submitted before the tribunal that the assessee is not liable to pay any advance tax u/s 210 of the Act, and has filed a computation of income disclosing total income of Rs. 2.44 lakhs for the year under appeal, (which is made a part of this order) and has prayed for an opportunity of hearing before the Ld first appellate authority to prove his case.

The ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that the assessee has a total bank credits of approx. 1.42 crores during the year, and there has been total non - compliance before the AO and the computation of income now filed before the tribunal, disclosing an income of Rs.2.44 lakhs (on a approx. turnover of Rs. 1.42 crores) is very much misleading and is not acceptable, but he has no objection if the matter is remanded before the Ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits.

We have heard the rival submissions and seen the materials on record and considering the meagre income declared in his computation, liability u/s 210 of the Act, apparently does not arise, but the authenticity of the same cannot be accepted without verification. As such in the interest of justice we remand the matter back to the Ld CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on the grounds contained in form 35 on merits and we direct the assessee to furnish all documentary evidences (including books of accounts) to prove his case and to establish the source of cash deposit in bank during demonetization and to fully cooperate with the appellate authorities.

The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard.

We have not expressed any opinion on merits.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.