Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals are against the CIT(A)'s order upholding additions made by the AO and levying penalty. The assessee faced delays in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and cited reasons like lack of technological knowledge and non-receipt of physical notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by taking a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal restored all issues related to the quantum addition and consequential penalty to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the addition and penalty should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(c), 147, 144, 69A, 274, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH,
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- These appeals at the instance of assessee are directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 25.07.2025 which are arising out of assessment order passed u/s 271(1)(c) dated 14.12.2023 of the Act.
2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in Ground 1: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) has erred in maintaining penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by Ld. AO.
& 2113/PUN/2025 Ground 2: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Leamed CITIA), ered in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal as the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Ground 3: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lid. CIT(A) bas ermed in maintaining the penalty of Rs. 71,75,281 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the Ld. Dinegitar of the fact that the specific limb under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act Le concealment of income o furnishing of inaccurate particulars was not specifically mentioned/strack off in the Notice unsder Section 274 of the Act. Ground 4: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete the above grounds of appeal at any time before, or at the time of, hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the learned Appellate Commissioner to decide this appeal according to law.
1. Ground 1- On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal as the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Ground 2-On the basis of facts and circumstances and in law, the reassessment proceedings upheld by the Learned CIT(A) against the appellant is time barred and hence ought to be quashed. Ground 3- Without prejudice to Ground 2, the Learned CIT(A), has erred in maintaining the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 2,32,53,205/-as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act The Learned CIT(A) failed to consider and ought to have held that out of total cash deposits, the appellant also made some re-deposits from the surplus cash withdrawn earlier. Thus, the cash re- deposited cannot be treated as unexplained money and therefore the said addition to the extent of re-deposits may be deleted. Ground 4-The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend, or delete the above ground of appeal at any time before, or at the time of, hearing of the appeal, to enable the learned Appellant Commissioner to decide this appeal according to law.
1. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the impugned order passed against the additions made by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) for A.Y. 2013-14 stated that due to non communication about the notice of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A) on account of allowed E-mail Id mentioned in Form No. 35 no compliance could be made. Further there was a delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was not condoned. He therefore prayed for affording one more opportunity to go before Ld. CIT(A). So far as the grounds raised against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same being
4. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard rival contentions and perused the record’s placed before us. The assessee’s appeal in Rs. 2,32,53,205/- made by Ld. AO u/s 69A of the Act for unexplained money. is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 71,75,281/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
6. We note that the assessee is an individual and in the reassessment proceedings carried out by Ld. AO based on the information about cash deposit in saving bank account with M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 2,32,53,205/-, the assessee failed to attend the notices on the given dates of hearing issued by Ld. AO. Ld. AO passed a best judgement assessment making addition of Rs. 2,32,53,210/-. Against this addition assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but with a delay of 255 days. The assessee furnished the reasons for delay appearing in Para 2.7 in the impugned order which is re-produced below:-
2.7 In this case the appellant has given the following reason for delay in filing of the appeal:
"1. The Ld. AO issued an Assessment Order dated 26th May 2023 under section 147 read with section 144 for AY 2013-14 making an addition of Rs. 2,32,53,205/- on account of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The appellant was unaware of the notices/ Assessment Order issued by the Ld. AO on the income tax portal or through emails as he does not have upfront knowledge of technology.
Further, the appellant never received physical notices from the Income Tax Department during the course of the assessment proceedings. Due to this, the appellant could not file a response to the notices and explain the nature and source of these cash deposits in the assessment & 2113/PUN/2025 proceedings. Consequently, Ld. AO concluded by best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act.
In these circumstances and on account of this, I was unable to respond to the notices issued by the Learned AO), which led to an unfavorable Assessment Order. Also, I did not receive the Assessment order until October 2023 and hence was unable to file an appeal against the same within the time limit of 30 days.
5. Further, as the case pertains to a very old period, it took substantial time for the appellant to collect bank statements and other relevant data. This led to a delay in filing an appeal before your honour.
That there is an unintentional mistake on my part. I humbly request you to kindly condone the delay and accept the appeal."
We find that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Consequently Ld. AO in the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also levied penalty of Rs. 71,75,281/- 8. From perusal of reasons giving rise to delay we observe that the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is not intentional and assessee has not granted anything from delaying the appeal. Taking a justice oriented approach and placing reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) (Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
Further since Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the case, we hereby restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal against the quantum addition raised in ITA 2113/PUN/2025 to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Also with regard to filed by the assessee against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since we have restored the issue of quantum addition to the file of Ld. CIT(A) the issue of penalty being consequential in nature is also remitted to the & 2113/PUN/2025 file of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in & 2113/PUN/2025 are restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 23rd day of December, 2025.