Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144, which made additions including unexplained cash deposits and unexplained money under Section 69A, due to non-compliance with notices. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed these additions, also finding no submissions from the assessee despite multiple opportunities. There was a delay of 116 days in filing the appeal to the ITAT, for which the assessee sought condonation.
Held
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the assessee's casual approach but prioritizing substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, expecting the assessee to present all facts and documents.
Key Issues
The key issues were the condonation of a 116-day delay in filing the appeal, the validity of ex-parte additions under Section 144 for non-compliance, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
250, 144, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Ritika Jalan, 103, Shova Bazar Street, Hathkola, Kolkata - 700005 [PAN: ASEPA2366B] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(5), Kolkata, 3, Government Place, Kolkata - 700001 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 16.06.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 24.06.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
In this case, there is a delay of 116 days, which has been requested to be condoned as under:
“In the matter of Ritika Jalan, daughter of Sushil Agarwal resident of 103, Shova Bazar Street, Hatkhola, Kolkata-700 005 PAN: ASEPA2366B A.Y. 2017-18 Affidavit For Condo nation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Against Assessment Order Of Income Tax officer ward 43(5) Kolkata I Ritika Jalan do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under That Order section 250 was received by me on 07/02/2024. That the delay 10 days has occurred due to delay in finding in suitable person who can file appeal with the Honourable ITAT, Kolkata That I apologise for the delay and prey to honourable members to kindly condone the delay in filing of the appeal.”
The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order dated 07.02.2024.
2.1 In this case, the Ld. AO passed an order dated 16.12.2019 u/s 144 of the Act. Through this order, the Ld. AO made two impugned additions after recording the finding that several opportunities given to the assessee were not responded to. Due to non-compliance, the Ld.AO was forced to pass an exparte order.
2.2 The assessee carried this matter before the First Appellate Authority where also he did not file any submissions or details to as many as 7 to 8 opportunities given to him. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Ld. AO.
2.3 Aggrieved with this, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds of appeal:
“1. Ld. CIT(A)[NFAC] has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 80,83,383.00 being 5% of total cash deposit of Rs. 16,16,67,665/- in Allahabad bank under the account titled N.R. Trading corporation. 2. Ld. CIT(A)[NFAC] has erred in confirming the sum of Rs. 4,63,145/- deposited in ICICI bank as unexplained money u/s 69A. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend ground of appeal either during of before the hearing of the appeal.”
3. On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication since this was the third effective hearing on which none have attended on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. DR was requested to assist the Bench in going through the documents.
Ritika Jalan 3.1 The Ld. AR pointed out that before neither of the authorities below has the assessee made any compliance whatsoever to the notices issued from time to time. Accordingly, both of the authorities below were right in making of the additions and also the same being confirmed.
We have carefully considered the documents before us and have also heard the Ld. DR. We find that the assessee has been rather casual in pursuing her matter before the authorities below. However, in the interests of substantive justice, we are persuaded by the fact that the assessee deserves a chance to present the details and documents in her favour before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the same to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We would expect that the assessee would make a full presentation of facts and file all necessary documents, including any new evidence (under extant Rules) and the Ld. CIT(A) would be expected to consider the same and even call for a remand report from the Ld. AO in case that is what is required.
In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 24.06.2025