Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a retail trader, declared income of Rs. 1,71,890 for AY 2012-13. The case was selected for reassessment under Section 148, and cash deposits of Rs. 15,29,604 were made in the assessee's bank account, which were not disclosed in the return. The Assessing Officer treated these as unexplained cash credit and added it to the assessee's total income.
Held
The Tribunal held that the previous appellate authority had dismissed the appeal without proper application of mind. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without examining the merits and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present his case.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(2), 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)
Date of concluding the hearing: January 22, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: February 26, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), Agra dated 6th March, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2012-13.
(A.Y. 2012-2013) Dilip Kumar Mondal 2. The appeal is time barred by 38 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 04.11.2024 saying that the assessee was unable to adhere to the original filing deadline. When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 38 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 inclined to condone the delay since the delay is not due to negligence on the part of assessee and the assessee has established sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a retail trader of musical instruments under the name and style of M/s. Mondal Music Centre and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.1,71,890/-. The case of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 was selected for reassessment under section 148 of the Act on 16.09.2019 and thereafter notices were issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act dated 18.11.2019 to the assessee through electronic mode. The point of contention of the ld. Assessing Officer was that the assessee has deposited total cash of Rs.15,29,604/- in small amounts of Rs.10,000 to 15,000/- each during the whole financial year 2011-12 in his Bank account maintained at Bank of Baroda, which was not disclosed in the return filed for the said (A.Y. 2012-2013) Dilip Kumar Mondal assessment year. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the cash deposited was due to the nature of business of the appellant which was the sales receipts from selling musical instruments. In the course of e-proceeding, the ld. Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) and thereafter a show- cause notice dated 09.12.2019 was issued to the assessee asking for explanation that why the amount of Rs.15,29,640/- deposited in the bank account mentained at Bank of Baroda should not be treated as unexplained cash credit, but the assessee did not give any reply of show-cause notice. Thereafter the ld. Assessing Officer added Rs.15,29,604/- to the total income of the assessee and assessed income at Rs.17,01,490/-.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee did not produce any document before ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) in support of his grounds of appeal inspite of given sufficient opportunities. The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal mentioning that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal on merits.
6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
7. I have heard both the sides. It was the submission of the assessee that the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without applying their mind and without going to the case on record and, therefore, prayed before the Bench for giving one more opportunity to substantiate his case.
(A.Y. 2012-2013) Dilip Kumar Mondal
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative pleaded to confirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
I have perused the material available on record. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I remit this issue back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer with a direction to examine this issue afresh and pass an order on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/02/2025.