Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 242 days. The Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings under Section 147 based on information about significant cash deposits in the assessee's bank account for which no return of income was filed. The assessee failed to comply with multiple notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The Tribunal noted the assessee's illiteracy and lack of awareness of tax proceedings as reasons for non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer with a cost.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed with a significant delay should be condoned and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, considering the assessee's circumstances.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 144, 144B, 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
Year: 2013-14 Marappa Gounder Balakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Door No. 13A, 1 Paramasivampalayam, Ward 2(1), Vayakkadu Thottam, Somanur, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 641 663. [PAN:ARYPB4707C] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 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 09.04.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 242 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 5 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in concluding the appellate order exparte the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. We note that the Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for AY 2013-14 on the basis of information that the assessee made high value cash deposits and cash withdrawals in his savings bank account during the previous year relevant to the AY 2013-14. The total credits in his bank accounts is ₹.1.03 crores and the assessee did not file return of income for AY 2013-14. Thus, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2021 followed by notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 27.07.2021. However, the assessee did not comply with the same. The Assessing Officer issued further notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated 13.12.2021, 25.01.2022 and 11.02.2022, but, however, the assessee again failed to comply with the same. By referring the case to the Verification Unit, additional communication was issued through speed post and delivered to the assessee on 16.02.2022, but, however, the assessee chooses not to reply. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice under section 144 of the Act on 02.03.2022 and however, the assessee again failed to comply with the same. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits of ₹.1,03,00,000/- as unexplained money and assessed under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution since the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. AR Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA submits that non- compliance to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer is neither wilful nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond assessee’s control. He submits that the assessee is an illiterate and a very tiny business person doing job work for the power loom and moreover, not aware of income tax proceedings. Thus, he prayed that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee to pursue his case before the Assessing Officer.
The ld. DR Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to para 2 to 4 of the assessment order as well as para 2 at page 2 of the impugned order and argues that the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) afforded ample opportunities to the assessee, but, it was not availed. He vehemently argued that costs may be imposed in case this Tribunal afford an opportunity by remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We note that the assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 28.03.2022. On perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer as well as hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). We also note that the Assessing Officer issued the show-cause notice to the assessee on 02.03.2022 proposing to add the above said cash deposits of ₹.1.03 crores as unexplained income and requested to comply with the notice, but, however, there was no response from 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 Assessing Officer subject to the condition of payment of ₹.5,000/- 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 Assessing Officer shall satisfy the payment of cost and 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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th April, 2025 at Chennai.