Loading judgment…
Facts
During demonetization, the assessee deposited Rs. 13,14,000/- cash in her Post Office account, but failed to explain the source. The AO treated this amount as unexplained money under Section 69A and assessed it. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) with a delay of 12 days, which the CIT(Appeals) dismissed for lack of reasonable cause, leading to the current appeal before the ITAT.
Held
The ITAT found that the 12-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was due to the negligence of the assessee's former advocate and not due to the assessee's own negligence. The ITAT condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeal on its merits, with a caution for the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in not condoning the 12-day delay in filing the appeal and whether the delay was due to a reasonable cause.
Sections Cited
142(1), 140, 133(6), 68, 115BBE, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Mira Ghosh,………………………..………..…………Appellant 22/H/113, Raja Manindra Road, Paikpara, Kolkata-700037 [PAN:AVKPG1522G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….……...Respondent Ward-45(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances by: Shri Rip Das, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: April 24, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: May 30, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 15th October, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that during demonetization period, the assessee deposited cash of Rs.13,14,000/- in her Belgachhia P.O. Account No. 3420938298. The assessee was requested vide 1 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Mira Ghosh notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 15.03.2018 to furnish a true and correct return of his income as per section 140 of the Act and as per format prescribed in Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules on or before 31.03.2018. But in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assesee did not file her return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. Notice under section 133(6) of the Act was sent to the Post Master, Belgachhia Road Post Office, Kolkata. In response, Post Master, Belgachhia Post Office sent a letter on 25.06.2019 saying that the assessee had deposited in her Post Office A/c. from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 total cash of Rs.13,14,000/- including demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016). A show cause notice was issued to the assessee through ITBA requesting the assesese to reply why the abovementioned credits of Rs.13,14,000/- should not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and should not be taxed under section 115BBE of the Act @ 60% on Rs.13,14,000/- in her hands and penal actions should not be imposed against her as per Income Tax Act. The assessee failed to explain total credits of Rs.13,14,000/- in her Post Office account. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,14,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a delay of 12 days and to justify the same.
After considering the submissions made by the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal saying that the assessee (A.Y. 2017-2018) Mira Ghosh failed to establish the reasonable cause to condone the delay of 12 days.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
I have heard both the sides. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee is a lady who is carrying on resale of sarees and stitching of ladies’ garments for last several years and is not accustomed with the online Income Tax portal system of the Income Tax Department and as such was fully dependent on her earlier Advocate to trace and contest the Income Tax Appeal case on merit. Due to negligence of her earlier appointed Advocate, the delay of 12 days had occurred in filing the appeal within the stipulated period. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further pleaded that the assessee has fair chance to win the case and pleaded to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits.
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue submitted that the assessee has not satisfactorily explained the reasons to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. He pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Mira Ghosh 7. I have perused the material available on record. Considering the reasons mentioned in the petition, I am of the view that the delay had occurred due to non-negligence on the part of assessee. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case to condone the delay and accordingly, I condone the delay of 12 days and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds 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 30/05/2025.