Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 519 days. The assessee's income was processed under section 143(1) and later selected for limited scrutiny due to cash deposits during the demonetization period.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing an opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(1), 143(3), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18, vide order dated 24.08.2023.
At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 519 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which Affidavit explaining the reasons for delay, has been filed by the assessee. The assessee has stated that the delay in filing the appeal is because of a genuine belief of the applicability of a particular provision of the Income Tax Act 1961 which was not accepted by the original
:-2-: ITA. No:967/Chny/2025 authority. The assessee further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has adjudicated his appeal ex-parte vide order dated 24.08.2023, the fact of which the assessee was unaware of as the entire proceeding was conducted online and in a faceless manner and recently upon receiving notices proposing levy of penalty for the impugned AY, and he became aware that his appeal has been dismissed by the CIT(A). Hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed its return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 22.10.2017, by declaring income of Rs.3,99,670/- along with the agriculture income of Rs.3,50,000/-. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and later selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the cash deposit. During the assessment proceedings the AO found that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.18,11,000/- by cash into City Union Bank and Rs.91,08,140/- in Federal Bank from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 during the demonetization period. In the absence of any compliance from the assessee an amount of Rs.26,13,400/- being cash deposited during demonetization period, after giving credit of Rs.3,00,000/- as cash on hand held on 08.11.2016 the balance of Rs.23,13,400/- has been added as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by passing an order dated 26.12.2019 u/s.143(3) of the Act.
:-3-: ITA. No:967/Chny/2025 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi.
At the outset, we observed that the Ld.CIT(A) has provided four opportunities to the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 5 of the CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer with available details by passing an order dated 24.08.2023. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.
Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the Assessing Officer has passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department and the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi due to non-participation of the assessee before the first appellate authority. Since, the assessee has failed to participate both before the Assessing Officer as well as the appellate authority, we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
:-4-: ITA. No:967/Chny/2025
In the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 15th July, 2025 at Chennai.