Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) confirming an addition of Rs. 11,43,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. The appeal was filed with a significant delay, which the assessee attributed to a mutual misunderstanding with the Chartered Accountant.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee had paid the appeal fees and there was no wilful attempt to delay. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders without sufficient opportunity and directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the matter de novo after providing a hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits is sustainable.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Assessment Years: 2017-18 Danadjeane, Income Tax Officer, No.28, Pillaiar Koil Street, Ward-1 Embalam, Pondicherry. Pondichery [PAN: AQIPD2440H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2023-24 / 1063684660(1) dated 30.03.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.
2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 325 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse, an agriculturist, had actually deposited the appeal fees in June 2024 itself. However a Chartered Accountant could not file the appeal in time because of some mutual misunderstanding. It was submitted that deposit of appeal fees in June-2024 itself indicates that there was no wilful attempt to delay. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither wilful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal.
3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities the Ld.AO as well as Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex- parte orders in case of the assessee. It was submitted that the only issue under consideration is an addition of Rs.11,43,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank during the demonetization period. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.First Appellate Authority has also confirmed the addition by passing an ex-parte order Page - 2 - of 5 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was accordingly pleaded that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.AO for readjudication. The Ld. Counsel personally assured that full compliance would now be made to the statutory notices.
4.0 Per contra, the Ld. DR would like to make us believe on the correctness of the order of lower authorities.
5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. As per facts recorded by the Ld. AO in his order, he had given opportunities to the assessee for filing the required details which were not satisfactorily filed by the assessee leading to his making the impugned addition. We have however noted that the order passed by the Ld. AO is not a speaking order and clear facts have not been brought on records before making the impugned addition. There are also indications of no enquiries conducted by the Ld.AO. Before the Ld.First Appellate Authority also the conduct of the assessee was far from satisfactory as far as compliance to statutory notices are concerned leading to dismissal of the appeal for want of adequate persecution by the assessee.
Page - 3 - of 5 6.0 We have thus noted that inadequate submission of details and evidences, before the lower authorities qua sources of cash deposits in assessee’s bank account lies at the core of the controversy. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file all supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The assessing officer is the primary authority under the income tax act to be examine facts of a case in the light of available evidences before determining correct taxable income of a tax payer. We therefore set aside the order of lower authorities on this issue and we direct the Ld. AO to readjudicate the matter de novo by examining the matter afresh in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non-compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely viewed. We however find force in the argument of the Ld. DR that assessee’s repeated non-compliance has indeed caused loss of precious time of the statutory authorities. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse on this issue are allowed for statistical purposes.
Page - 4 - of 5
Order pronounced on 19th , June-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार धिरर) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 19th , June-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF
Page - 5 - of 5