Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal after a delay of 46 days, citing technical glitches in the ITAT website migration. The assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 81,20,000/- and FDR of Rs. 9,00,000/- which were treated as unexplained investments and unexplained money by the AO.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting additional evidence provided by the assessee concerning the source of funds. The matter was restored to the AO for verification and a fresh speaking order.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to technical issues, and whether additional evidence should be admitted and the matter remanded for fresh verification.
Sections Cited
139, 147, 148, 144B, 69, 69A, 29
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. : This appeal is filed by Shri Rajendra Prasad Anne (“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 30.08.2024 for the A.Y. 2015-16.
At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 46 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order of the Ld.
CIT(A). The learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the due date for filing the appeal was 30.10.2024, and though the assessee had paid the prescribed appeal filing fee of Rs.10,000/- on 19.10.2024, he could not upload the appeal documents on the ITAT portal due to technical issues following the migration of the ITAT website.
2.1 It was further submitted that despite several attempts, the assessee was unable to file the appeal electronically, and ultimately the appeal could be uploaded successfully only on 16.12.2024, thereby resulting in a delay of 46 days. The Ld. AR submitted a condonation petition along with an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the delay, and submitted that the delay was not deliberate or due to any negligence, but was solely due to technical glitches beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed for condonation of delay in the interest of justice.
2.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay and accepted that the delay appears to be caused by technical difficulties in the portal and not due to any default on the part of the assessee.
2.3 We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the condonation petition and affidavit placed on record. The explanation furnished by the assessee is found to be reasonable and bonafide. It is evident that the assessee had taken steps for filing the appeal within the limitation period by paying the appeal fee well in advance, and the delay occurred only due to technical glitches on the ITAT portal at the relevant time, which was acknowledged as part of the website migration process. In view of the above and in the interest of substantial justice, we are inclined to condone the delay of 46 days in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
Brief Facts of the Case are that, the assessee is an individual and did not file any return of income under section 139 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (“the Act”) for the relevant year. Based on information received, the learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) observed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 81,20,000/- in his bank account during the financial year relevant to A.Y. 2015–16. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Ld. AO to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed return of income, declaring total income of Rs. 1,58,427/- under the head “Income from Other Sources”.
4.1 During assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO called upon the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs. 81,20,000/- and FDR of Rs. 9,00,000/-. The assessee submitted that he has not deposited cash of Rs. 81,20,000/- in bank accounts during the year under consideration. However the amount of cash deposits and other credits in his bank accounts is only Rs. 73,41,644/-. He also explained that the cash deposits comprised proceeds from sale of agricultural land and return of cash loans from debtors. A copy of the registered sale deed and confirmation letters from two debtors were filed during assessment. However, the Ld. AO found the explanations inadequate and made the additions Rs. 9,00,000/- on account of fixed deposits treating the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, Rs. 64,41,644/- on account of balance credit in the bank accounts treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and Rs. 27,581/- as unreported interest income. The Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 28/02/2024 and computed total income at Rs.73,69,225/-.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-compliance by the assessee to the notices issued during the appellate proceedings.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. At the beginning of the hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is pressing only two issues in this appeal i.e. a) Addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- under section 69 of the Act and b) Addition of Rs. 64,41,644 under section 69A of the Act.
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had initially attempted to explain before the Ld. AO the bank deposits as being sourced from the sale proceeds of agricultural land and return 0f Cash loans from several debtors.
Although the sale deed and two confirmations were filed during assessment, complete documentation could not be collected and submitted in time. He further submitted that, the assessee now seeks admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. The additional documents, placed at Page nos. 41 to 72 of the Paper Book, include list of debtors, confirmation letters from multiple debtors regarding return of loan taken by them in cash to the assessee; copies of Aadhaar cards and PAN cards of some of those persons etc. The Ld. AR submitted that the additional evidence goes to the root of the dispute and that the assessee is now also in a position to explain the remaining credits in the bank account by producing substantial documentation. Finally, the Ld. AR prayed for admission of the additional evidence, remand of the matter to the Ld. AO for verification and grant of one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice.
Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly opposed both the admission of additional evidence and the request for remand. He submitted that the assessee had ample opportunity during assessment and first appellate proceedings to furnish supporting documents but failed to do so without any just cause. The confirmations now filed before the Tribunal raise serious doubts about their genuineness as the confirmations are typed in English, yet several of them are signed in Telugu, raising doubts as to whether the signatories understood the contents of the documents they were signing. Further, the style, format, and language of all confirmation letters appear to be uniform, suggesting that they may have been prepared mechanically or without independent input from the lenders.
He further submitted that, these factors indicate a possibility that the confirmations may have been prepared and signed under influence or without full knowledge, and hence, deserve strict scrutiny. Therefore, the Ld. DR submitted that there is no valid ground to accept documents which could and should have been filed earlier. Accordingly, the remand request may be rejected and the additions upheld in absence of contemporaneous evidence filed at the right stage.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record, including the additional evidence. On perusal of Page nos. 41 to 72 of the Paper Book, we note that the assessee has now filed list of debtors, confirmation letters from multiple debtors regarding return of loan taken by them in cash to the assessee; copies of Aadhaar cards and PAN cards of some of those persons etc. The Documents filed by the assessee indicates the source and route of bank credits. We further note that these documents were not filed either before the Ld. AO or the Ld. CIT(A). The reason cited by the assessee is lack of professional guidance and time constraints.
9.1 We observe that, the additions are substantial and the assessee is now in possession of evidence that he claims to be genuine, we are inclined to admit the additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the additional evidence is admitted and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO with the directions to verify all the evidences submitted by the assessee and pass a fresh speaking order after affording the assessee due opportunity of hearing.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.