Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee deposited a substantial amount of cash in bank accounts during the demonetization period but failed to file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer treated a significant portion of this cash as unexplained money, and this addition was upheld by the CIT(Appeals).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal also decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the issue, providing an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
142(1), 139, 69A, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Appearances by: Nirupama DB, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: October 13, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: October 30, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 28.02.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-2018.
The appeal is time barred by 444 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 444 days (A.Y. 2017-2018) Suresh Kumar Agarwal mentioning that the delay occurred due to being a layman with no understanding of income tax laws due to the exemption for Sikkim subjects. The assessee engaged Advocate Ms. Nirbhriti Halder to file such appeal and ld. Advocate filed appeal on 13.01.2020 within the statutory time limit and Appellate Authority disposed the said appeal on 28.02.2024 confirming the assessment order but ld. Advocate forgot to inform the same to the appeallant, and when he came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), he approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 444 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 444 days. Hence the delay is condoned.
Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who had deposited substantial cash in bank accounts during demonetization period (9th November, 2016 to 30th December, 2016), but did not file his income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18. The data reveals that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.1,15,88,606/- in the bank accounts maintained by him during FY 2016-17 including cash deposited of Rs.13,34,500/- during demonetization period. As per section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee was required to furnish the said return of income as required to be furnished as per the conditions and manner prescribed in Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on or before (A.Y. 2017-2018) Suresh Kumar Agarwal 25.03.2018. But the assessee failed to furnish the return of income for AY 2017-18 either under section 139 and failed to furnish income tax return in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act. If there is an entry which shows the receipt of a sum by the assessee, it is the burden of proof of the assessee to establish the source of that money and to prove that it did not bear the nature of income. It is evident that inspite of giving several opportunities vide notices, the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanation supported by documents with respect to excess credits to the tune of Rs.29,50,114/-. The ld. Assessing Officer treated Rs.29,50,114/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Finally ld. Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the Assessee at Rs.36,20,971/-.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee saying that inspite of giving several opportunities to furnish documents in support of his claim, the assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence related to the unexplained excess sum.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the assessee ex- parte without going into the merit of the case and simply relied on the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, he pleaded to set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Suresh Kumar Agarwal
On the other hand, it was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that the assessee failed to offer any explanation/supporting documents in respect of the grounds of appeals raised by him before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The assessee has not filed the bills and vouchers to establish the genuineness of the transactions. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the assessee was not in a position to file some of the evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer. But now he requested to remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh and to examine these documents. The ld. Departmental Representative did not raise any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to decide it afresh. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. Assessing Officer failing which the Ld. Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record.
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Suresh Kumar Agarwal Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.