Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee made cash deposits of ₹.18,57,102/- in FY 2010-11. The Assessing Officer treated these as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the condonation petition and decide the issue afresh. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal due to delay and non-compliance, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the cash deposits.
Sections Cited
69A, 148, 139(1), 144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi&
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders both dated 16.12.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Since, the issues raised in both the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
First, we shall take appeal in - AY 2011-12 for adjudication.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 21 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] by passing exparte order.
6. We note that according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee made cash deposits of ₹.18,57,102/- in to his savings bank account with ICICI Bank during FY 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12 and filed return of income for AY 2011-12 under section 139(1) of the Act on 03.06.2012 admitting an income of ₹.1,84,590/-. But, however, the assessee has not filed return of income against the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Despite various notices including show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to file the return of income or any details or explanation furnished towards the cash deposits. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of ₹.18,57,102/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.
7. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 270 days in filing the appeal. Since the assessee, neither filed condonation petition nor complied with the various hearing notices issued, or filed any written submission with documentary evidences in support of the grounds raised, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. AR Shri Tamil Amudhan, CA submits that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely based on the non-response to deficiency notices for non-filing of condonation petition and hearing notices, which was neither intentional nor deliberate, but, due to lack of awareness regarding the online issuance of notices. He further submits that in the grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has committed to offer explanation for the delay in filing the appeal during the course of hearing and moreover, the assessee was in bonafide belief that the appeal proceedings were duly responded by tax consultant and thus, the ld. AR prayed that the assessee may be afforded one more opportunity to prosecute his case before the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to para 4.2 at pages 5 and 6 of the impugned order and argued that the ld. CIT(A) afforded ample opportunities to the assessee, but, it was not availed.
Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We note that the assessment was completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 29.11.2019. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). We find the assistance of assessee is necessary in terms of addition involves under section 69A of the Act. We also note the assessee has admitted to have committed to offer explanation for the delay in filing the appeal in the grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which was reproduced at page 3 of the impugned order. Moreover, we also note that the ld. AR brought on record an affidavit, wherein, the assessee undertakes to participate in the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for affording one more opportunity to the assessee. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to afford one more opportunity and remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition as may be filed by the assessee and condone the delay. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
AY: 2012-13 11. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 21 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
We find the issue in AY 2012-13 are similar to the facts and circumstances relevant to AY 2011-12 in wherein, we have remanded the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration and, therefore, we hold our findings would be equally applicable to the assessment year under consideration. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee for AY 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th June, 2025 at Chennai.