Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a 52-day delay against an ex-parte CIT(A) order which sustained an addition of Rs. 7.49 crores for unexplained cash deposits under Section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE. The delay occurred as the assessee, relying on an absent accountant, only learned of the ex-parte order after receiving a demand notice and had not appeared before the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 52-day delay, finding it bonafide. Recognizing that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication to ensure justice, thus allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the addition under Section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE for cash deposits requires re-adjudication given the ex-parte order by CIT(A) and lack of reasonable opportunity.
Sections Cited
69, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Ramu Sonkar Vs ITO, Ward-33(2), Kolkata 132, AJC Bose Road, Sealdah, Kolkata-700014 PAN No. :AKUPS 5278 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri B.Satyanarayan Raju, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM :
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 09.09.2024, passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-2019.
At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal is barred by 52 days for which the assessee has filed condonation application along with affidavit of the assessee affirming therein that the assessee is not in habit of accessing emails on regular basis and he depends on the accountant for the same including the coordination with the tax consultant. The assessee affirmed in the affidavit that the assessee could not comply with the notice as accountant was on leave and it was only in the first week of January when the notice regarding recovery of outstanding demand was received in email, the assessee came to know that ex-parte order having already been passed. Accordingly, the appeal documents were prepared and filed before the ITAT on 21.01.2025 with a delay of 52 days.
After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and perusing the contents of the affidavit, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal is for bonafide and sufficient reasons and accordingly delay of 52 days is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is taken for adjudication.
The sole issue involved in the appeal of the assessee is with regard to the addition made by the AO of Rs.7,49,68,600/- on account of cash deposits treating the same as income from undisclosed sources by wrongly invoking the provisions of Sectiion 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, which has also wrongly been sustained by the ld. CIT(A) without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
On perusal of both the orders of the lower authorities, we find that the assessee could not furnish the details as claimed before either of the authorities below. Even before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee did not appear resulting into ex-parte order being passed by the appellate authority. The assessee could not explain the cash deposits in the bank account maintained with UCO Bank ,Sealdah Branch, Kolkata. Since the assessee has not represented his case before the first appellate authority and the ld. CIT(A) has also passed the order ex-parte, therefore, we are of the view that to meet the end of justice, the issue involved in the present appeal requires re-adjudication at the end of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly,