Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 13,00,500/- and total credits of Rs. 91,68,429/- during FY 2016-17. He did not file his ITR by the due date, leading to assessment under Section 144 by the AO, who added Rs. 91,68,429/- as unexplained money under Section 69. The assessee appealed to CIT(A) with a delay of 1262 days, citing non-availability of credentials and his accountant's death, but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on grounds of health reasons.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adequately considering the assessee's application for condonation of delay and without providing a sufficient opportunity of hearing. The matter is thus restored to the CIT(A) to reconsider the appeal and the delay condonation application on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing an appeal in limine without properly considering the condonation of 1262 days delay and without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
139(1), 142(1), 144, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G
आदेश/ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G, A.M. : This appeal is filed by Shri Bhanwar Lal (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 21.11.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
The brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with the department on AIMS Module of ITBA, it was noticed that during the period of demonetisation from 08.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.13,00,500/- and total amount of credited during F.Y. 2016-17 was at Rs.91,68,429/-. The assessee did not file his Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2017-18 on or before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 12.03.2018 to file return of income for the Asst. Year 2017-18. The assessee did not comply with the notice issued by the Assessing Officer and therefore one more notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued and called upon the assessee to file relevant evidences of cash deposit during the demonetisation period. In response to the notice, the assessee filed submissions and stated that though he was owner of Pooja Plastics, the actual business was handled by his maternal uncle. The assessee had also filed Income Tax Return on 27.09.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.3,15,100/-. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant evidences of cash deposited during the demonetisation period and also taking note of non-compliance of the assessee to the notice issued, completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act on 17.12.2019 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.91,68,429/- by making addition of Rs.91,68,429/- u/s. 69 of the Act as unexplained money.
Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the said appeal has been filed on 01.06.2023 with a delay of 1262 days. The assessee has explained the reasons for such delay before the Ld. CIT(A) in Form 35 and stated that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was not noticed by the assessee because he was not having relevant credentials of e-mail ID and mobile number which were registered on the income tax portal. Further, he stated that the Accountant who was handling the tax matters was expired and the income tax portal became non-accessible. Later on the assessee received notice regarding demand payable for the Asst. Year 2017-18 and after noticing the order passed by the Assessing Officer, he took steps to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence the delay of 1262 days caused in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), he explained.
The Ld. CIT(A) issued notice of hearing on 14.11.2024 and directed the assessee to submit the details on or before 20.11.2024. The assessee has submitted details on 20.11.2024 and explained the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay of 1262 days in filing of the appeal before him on the ground that the assessee had given health reasons for not filing the appeal in time, but could not substantiate the reasons with relevant evidences. Therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine by quoting reasons of bad health of the assessee, whereas in Form 35 stated that the appeal could not be filed due to non-availability of relevant credentials because of death of Accountant who was handling the tax matters. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing, the matter may be remanded to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain with all evidences before him.
On the other hand, the Learned Department Representative submitted that the assessee could not explain the delay of 1262 days in filing of the appeal. Further, he submitted that it is evident that the assessee is non-cooperative at all stages of appellate proceedings and the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order. Since the assessee is not vigilant about tax matters, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing of appeal before him. Further, the assessee has filed appeal in an inordinate delay and the assessee could not offer sufficient cause to condone.
In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (D) by LRS Vs. Special Dy.
Collector in Spl. Leave Petition No.3125 of 2018 Dt.08.04.2024.
We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine for filing of appeal belatedly of 1282 days. Admittedly, there was delay of 1262 days in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee had given reasons in Form 35 and also filed condonation petition along with Affidavit on 20.11.2024 and stated that due to non-availability of relevant credentials because of death of Accountant who was handling the tax matters, appeal could not be filed. Further, only after receipt of the demand notice issued by the Assessing Officer in 2023, the assessee took steps to file the appeal which caused 1262 days delay. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by giving one date of hearing by issuing notice on 14.11.2024 and had given time upto 20.11.2024 for submission of details and evidences. The assessee had submitted the details on 20.11.2024 and had also filed various evidences including application for condonation of delay and explained the reasons. However, the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the submissions of the assessee dated 20.11.2024 passed order on 21.11.2024 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay on the ground of health reasons, even though the assessee has given different reasons for delay. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay and without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing, in our considered view the matter needs to be set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Thus, we restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the appeal filed by the assessee including the delay in filing of appeal after considering the relevant application for condonation of delay filed on 20.11.2024.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st Oct., 2025.