Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. An ex-parte assessment was made under Section 147 read with Sections 144/144B, treating cash deposits of ₹2,23,57,600/- as unexplained income under Section 69A. The CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order, leading the assessee to file an appeal with the ITAT after a delay of 330 days, citing medical grounds.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal to ITAT, deeming the reason bona fide. It restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard to present documents and make submissions.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; validity of ex-parte orders by the AO and CIT(A) due to lack of proper opportunity of hearing; treatment of cash deposits as unexplained income under Section 69A and application of Section 115BBE.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 147, 144, 144B, 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
Sulekha Pal ITO Ward No.3(1) Joypur, Bankura, PIN-722138, Vs. Income Tax Building, West Bengal Kenduadihi, Bankura-722102, (PAN: BSCPP7202C) West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Manoj Kataruka, AR Respondent by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha & Shri S.B. Chakraborty, DR Date of Hearing : 16.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 O R D E R
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18 dated 12.02.2024.
At the outset, it appears from the record of the registry that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 330 days, for this the assessee has filed a condonation petition in the form of an affidavit, which reads as under: -
“Affidavit 1 Smt. Sulekha Pal, aged about 38 years, wife of Mr. Uday Pal residing at Joypur, P.O. Joypur, Dist:-Bankura do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows:-
That an appeal filed before the Ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre on 26.05.2022 That the said Appeal filed against the Assessment Order dated 17.03.2022 which was passed ex parte as the appellant could not communicate with as- sessing officer during the course of hearing. The Present Appeal before the ITAT, Kolkata is being filed against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) of National Faceless Appeal Cen- tre dated 12.02.2024 which was passed Ex Parte without considering the prayer for adjournment on medical ground taken by the appellant. Delay caused in filling appeal as the Appellant did not received any hardcopy of order of the CIT (Appeal). That the filing the Appeal before ITAT, Kolkata against the Order of the CIT(A), before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata was due on 29.04.2024. That the Appellant is suffering from chronic "Hypertension with Coronary in- sufficiency syndrome" and she is undergoing treatment for a long period and is unable to do normal activities, and was bed ridden during that time period, due to suffering of prolonged disease and due to such unavoidable circum- stances the Appellant was unable to file the Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within the stipulated time. That in support to the above contention I am enclosing the Copy of Medical Certificate dated 22.03.2025 for your kind perusal. That I have deposited the Appeal fees of Rs. 10000/- as on 24.03.2025 That delay in filling the appeal is unintentional, bonafide and the Appellant was prevented for sufficient cause. Praver:- It is therefore most respectfully prayed that delay of 337 days in filling the appeal may kindly be condoned so that justice may be done. That, I Smt. Sulekha Pal the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of the above paragraph are true to the best of knowledge and belief.”
On a perusal of the condonation petition filed in the form of the affidavit, the reason for delay in filing the appeal seems to be bona fide and a sufficient cause. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view the contents of the affidavit seeking condonation of delay as well as the judicial pronouncements in this re- gard that the case should be decided on merits and not be dismissed on mere technicality; as the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as un- der:
For that on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in pass- ing an ex parte order without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO not considering the IT return filed by the appellant on 27/01/2022 in response to notice u's 148 of the IT Act, 1961. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO treating entire cash deposit in two bank accounts to the amount of Rs. 2,23,57,600/- as unexplained money u's 69A of the IT Act, 1961 without considering audited accounts For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in sustaining order of the AO not considering Tax audit report (TAR) uploaded in the Income tax portal within due date for A.Y. 2017-18. For that on the fact and circumstances of the case the Ld. .CIT(A) erred in confirming demand of Rs.3.71.33.162/- by invoking S.115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 by treating cash deposit in bank accounts as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 only due to non-filing of IT return though Tax audit report which was uploaded thus causing violation of principle of natural jus- tice.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. On the basis of information available in the AIMS module, the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and the assessment was made u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act on 17.03.2022 by making an addition of ₹2,23,57,600/- as unexplained cash deposited into the bank accounts as the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who issued three notices through email dated 07.08.2023, 11.01.2024 and 22.01.2024 but again there was non-compliance on the part of the as- sessee; hence, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Being aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has filed the appeal before us.
We have heard the rival submissions. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order and neither the delay was con- doned nor the relief claim was allowed as the assessee could not submit- ted any evidence for the same. Even before the Ld. AO no proper submis- sion was made and the assessment order has been made ex parte. A pe- rusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that during the appellate pro- ceedings the assessee was issued three notices through email but there was non-compliance to the notice issued. The Ld. AR requested that an opportunity may be given to the assessee for producing the documents before the Ld. Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR did not object to the same. We therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee and restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for de novo adjudication. Needless to mention, proper op- portunity of being heard shall be provided to the assessee and the as- sessee shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for a reasonable cause. Hence, the Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17th July, 2025.