Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 393 days, citing technical glitches and personal difficulties in accessing the order and complying with lower authorities. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an ex-parte addition of Rs. 43,22,041/- on account of unexplained cash deposits, which was upheld ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to inadequate compliance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation for non-compliance to be adequate. The Tribunal held that the matter concerning cash deposits was not objectively analyzed by the lower authorities and that justice would be met by giving the assessee one last opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the assessee should be granted a final opportunity to present evidence regarding unexplained cash deposits due to inadequate analysis by lower authorities.
Sections Cited
69A, 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, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Assessment Years: 2011-12 Ganesan Devadoss, Income Tax Officer, Sakthikullam Street, Ward-3, Melakadamboor, Cuddalore. Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu-608 304. [PAN: ALQPD1454L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Tarun, Advocate for S.Sridhar, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gautham S. Mukundan, IRS सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : .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 / 1058891238(1) dated 19.12.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12. 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 393 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse could not access and download the order of the Ld.CIT(A) due to some technical glitch. It had raised grievance on department’s grievance portal also but there was no respite. The assessee then approached the department and procured a physical copy of the order. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful 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.AR submitted that the Ld.AO has passed an ex-parte order making addition of Rs.43,22,041/- u/s 69A on account of unexplained cash deposits in assessee’s bank account with the Indian Bank. It was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order on the premise of inadequate compliances. It has been pleaded that the assessee could not make requisite compliance before the lower authorities on account of personal difficulties. It was urged that the Page - 2 - of 5 assessee’s non-compliance be excused and one last opportunity be given to present its case before the lower authorities.
4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities.
5.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. Admittedly, there was a delay before the lower authorities, however we also conscious of the fact that no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. We have noted from the order of lower authorities that merits of the case have not been appropriately examined before arriving at their impugned decision. The assessee also can not escape the blame of submission of incomplete documents. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter concerning cash deposits of the assessee have not been objectively and comprehensively analyzed by the lower authorities. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and filed supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. Without prejudice it has also been noted that in this case the Ld. AO did not have Page - 3 - of 5 adequate opportunities to examine the varied facts seminal therein. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the issue of addition u/s 69A made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 43,22,041/- which have been contested by the assessee through its grounds of appeal stands remitted back to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication de novo by passing a speaking order. To the extent the order of lower authorities on this issue stands set aside. 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. The assessee is at liberty to produce all the evidences filed through its paper book before us including any other evidences deemed relevant in support of its claims before the Ld. AO during the readjudication proceedings. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes.
Page - 4 - of 5 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on , June-2025 at Chennai.