Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 for AY 2011-12 as the assessee had not filed a return under Section 139. The assessee eventually filed a delayed return. Based on bank statements, the AO noted a cash deposit of ₹50,51,713/-, which was treated as unexplained investment under Section 69 due to lack of satisfactory explanation. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to repeated non-compliance with hearing notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a 534-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the repeated non-compliance by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and the need for detailed submissions, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This remand is subject to the assessee paying ₹50,000/- as costs to the State Legal Aid Authority within 30 days.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee, despite repeated non-compliance before the CIT(A), should be granted another opportunity to submit evidence and explain the unexplained cash deposits under Section 69, and whether to impose costs for such opportunity.
Sections Cited
148, 139, 69, 250, 143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi&
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ Year: 2011-12 Paramasiva Naidu Muthuvelraj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 1496, Old No. 13, Non Corporate Ward 7(3), 16th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [PAN:APGPM5212F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 534 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.
Brief facts relating to the issue are that the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act requiring the assessee to file his return of income as the assessee has not filed his return of income under section 139 of the Act. The assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2011-12 on 23.10.2018. From bank statement furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that there is total cash deposit of ₹.50,51,713/- in his account for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. Since the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanation with supporting documentary evidence for the source of cash deposit of ₹.50,51,713/-, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued various hearing notices under section 250 of the Act, but, however, the assessee did not comply with any of the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee could not file any submissions in support of the grounds raised with documentary evidences, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. AR Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate submits that non- compliance to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) is neither wilful nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond assessee’s control. He submits that the assessee is ready to furnish complete details before the ld. CIT(A), if this Tribunal afford one more opportunity to the assessee. Thus, the ld. AR prayed that, one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee to pursue 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 of the impugned order and argued that the ld. CIT(A) afforded ample opportunities to the assessee, but, it was not availed. She vehemently argued that costs of ₹.1,00,000/- may be imposed, in case this Tribunal affords an opportunity by remanding the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We note that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 31.12.2018. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act dated 27.11.219, 24.12.2019, 29.12.2020, 08.05.2023, 24.05.2023 and 13.06.2023. We note that on being questioned about the specific information including total amount of loan given by the assessee to PMR Educational Trust, the date on which the loan was given, mode of its payments, bank account statements in support of the loan, etc., the assessee could not provide any details during the course of assessment proceedings or before the ld. CIT(A) or before this Tribunal. We find the assistance of assessee is necessary in terms of additions involves under section 69 of the Act. 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) subject to the condition of payment of ₹.50,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, and the ld. CIT(A) shall satisfy the payment of cost and decide the issue on merits afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.