ASHOK KUMAR MALL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 62(1), KOLKATA

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.08.2015 declaring income of Rs.2,93,390/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reasons of Large investment in property and large cash deposits in savings bank account and transferring of one or more property Ashok Kumar Mall during the year. In response to statutory notices issued u/s.143(2)/142(1), the assessee filed the requisite details before the AO. During the course of proceedings, ld. AO noticed that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs.10.65 lakh in the Federal Bank, Burabazar Branch. Ld. AO called upon the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit to which the assessee submitted that it was out of cash withdrawals made by him on different dates. Ld. AO after analyzing the withdrawals made by the assessee made addition of Rs.2.15 lakh in the hands of assessee as unexplained cash deposits. Ld. AO also found that the assessee has purchased a property for which an Agreement was made for Rs.2.00 lakh. In the absence of supporting documents furnished by the assessee, ld. AO made addition of said sum of Rs.2.00 lakh as well. Thus, ld. AO vide order dated 26.12.2017 completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act making addition of Rs.4.15 lakh to the total income of assessee assessing the income at Rs.7,08,390/- as against the returned income of Rs.2,93,390/-.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 456 days. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, by not condoning the delay. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the assessee at the relevant time, was suffering from various health ailments and was under tremendous financial stress coupled with the case before the NCLT. It was also submitted that the Accountant on whom the assessee had relied upon has failed to take action in filing the appeal before Ashok Kumar Mall the ld.CIT(A) within the stipulated time. Therefore the delay ought to have condoned by the ld.CIT(A) as the there was ‘reasonable cause’ on the part of assessee for not presenting the appeal in time. In the backdrop of these facts, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condoning the delay and remanding the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the issues on merits.

I have carefully gone through the impugned order and the reasons attributed by the assessee for filing the appeal belatedly. Having gone through the reasons stated by the assessee I find that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, the delay of 456 days in preferring the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is condoned by virtue of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 SC.

Considering the totality of the facts of the case and the ld. Departmental Representative having no objection for remanding the matter, the issues on merit are being remitted back to the ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee is directed to provide proper email id to the department for receiving the hearing notices from the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Finding of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Ashok Kumar Mall

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.