Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against a CIT(A) order for AY 2017-18 with a 285-day delay. The delay was attributed to the assessee's wife's serious illness and subsequent surgery, and the death of his Chartered Accountant. The lower authorities had made additions for cash deposits during demonetization and estimated income at 8% of turnover due to the assessee's non-representation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the wife's health issues and the CA's demise, which led to non-representation. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, instructing to consider all relevant records, new evidence, and provide a proper opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; validity of additions made by lower authorities in absence of assessee's representation; necessity for fresh adjudication considering new evidence.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SM B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24/01/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18.
There is a delay of 285 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the wife of the assessee was Page 1 of 7 suffering from serious health problems from December, 2023 onwards and was undergoing medical treatment. He has produced the original medical record before us and submitted that ultimately, the surgery was performed on the wife of the assessee on 28/10/2024, a copy of which is also annexed to the affidavit filed by the assessee. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and the same may be condoned and the appeal of the assessee may be admitted for adjudication on merits.
On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 285 days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained the cause of the delay as the illness of his wife. However, the filing of the appeal does not take much time which cannot be spared by the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the cause of delay explained by the assessee in the affidavit as under:
The assessee has produced the medical record manifesting the duration of the treatment undergone by the wife
Page 3 of 7 of the assessee including the surgery. The assessee has also filed a copy of the death certificate of the C.A of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee was having sufficient cause for the delay of 285 days in filing the present appeal and the same is condoned.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has made two additions on account of deposits in the bank account during the demonetization period as well as estimating the income @ 8% of the turnover. He has submitted that due to the problems faced by the assessee regarding the illness of the wife and undergoing treatment for a long period, the assessee could not produce the complete record before the authorities below. Further, due to the death of the CA of the assessee, the case of the assessee was not properly represented before the authorities below. He has referred to the paper book filed by the assessee and submitted that the assessee has now filed certain additional evidence to explain the source of cash as well as the correct income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Thus, he has pleaded that the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for verification and examination of the documentary evidence including the additional evidence filed by the assessee and then adjudication of the matter.
On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that despite sufficient opportunities given by the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT (A), the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposit in the bank account during the demonetization period. She has relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the rival submissions as well as carefully perused the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer has made an addition on account of cash
Page 5 of 7 deposits in the bank account during the demonetization period for want of supporting evidence to explain the source of the said cash. Further, the Assessing Officer has also estimated the income of the assessee @8% based on the credits in the bank account of the assessee. The order was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act which shows that there was no representation on behalf of the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Similarly, the learned CIT (A) has also passed the impugned order when there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has produced copy of death certificate of the CA who was dealing with the tax matters of the assessee and therefore, the non- representation before the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT (A) was due to the reason of the death of the CA of the assessee. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the relevant record and evidence as well as giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.