Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file an income tax return for AY 2018-19. Based on information of cash withdrawals and deposits, the Assessing Officer completed reassessment under Section 147 r.w.s. Section 144C(3), determining income at Rs. 26,14,041/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A)/NFAC, but the appeal was dismissed in limine due to a 26-day delay, despite the assessee citing illness and submitting a medical certificate.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause (illness) from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and remanded the matter back, directing the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone a 26-day delay, and whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 was procedurally irregular regarding notices and faceless assessment norms.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148, 148A(d), 151A, 148A(b), 1st proviso to 148, 144B, VI-A, 142(1), 143(2), 144C, 148(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ananda Gorakhanath Pawar, Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Satara. At Post Ambawade, Khatav, Satara- 415506. PAN : BLHPP6081R Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri R. C. Doshi : Revenue by : Shri Milind Debaje Date of hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19.
The appellant has filed the following grounds of appeal :-
1. The learned CIT has erred both on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by refusing to condone the delay of 26 days on grounds of period of limitation, notwithstanding the fact that appellant has submitted the application and explained the reasons for delay.
2. The learned CIT has erred both in facts and in law in dismissing the appeal without giving an opportunity and notice to Show cause as to why delay to filing the Appeal should not be condoned especially when he had dealt with all the issues in Appellate Order.
The learned CIT has erred both in facts and in law in not dealing with other issues on merits.
4. The Assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the IT Act, 1961 is it bad in law, illegal and not tenable – a) Notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 30/03/2022 is issued by jurisdictional assessing officer and not by Faceless Assessment office as required by section 151A of IT Act, 1961 and CBDT scheme for faceless reassessment dated 29/03/2022. b) The Copy of the approval given by the prescribed authority was not enclosed with notice u/s 148A(b), u/s 148 as well as order u/s 184A(d) of the Act as required by CBDT guidelines and various judicial pronouncement. c) The information of cash withdrawal from bank does not suggest escapement of income liable to tax and assessing officer does not have any information suggesting escapement of income chargeable to tax. This is in violation of 1st provision to section 148 of Act and the notice under section 148 and the order under section 148A(d) & 147 r.w.s. 144 of ITA, 1961 are bad in law, illegal and not tenable. Appellant prays your Honour to quash the assessment proceedings. d) The Learned Assessing Officer supplied only the information and not the material received by him and relied upon by him as required under the provisions of IT Act, 1961. e) The approval accorded is mechanical one and without application of mind as would be clear from the fact that withdrawals of cash has been considered as information suggesting escapement of income chargeable to tax. f) Notice u/s 148A(b), u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) bear the same reference no, of approval by prescribed authority and is not in accordance with the rules, act and guidelines prescribed. g) The jurisdiction assumed and reopening of amount is not in accordance with provisions of IT Act, 1961.
5. The appellant request for admission of additional evidences if any requires in support of above grounds of appeal
6. The appellant craves, leave to add alter, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal.”
3. The appellant has also raised following additional grounds of appeal :- “
Ground No. 6 » Learned AO erred on the facts, circumstances of the case and in law and by not following the procedure given in section 144B while passing the final assessment order and by not issuing show cause notice before making following addition / disallowance: • Disallowed purchase of milk amounting to INR 5,34,649 • Disallowed payment made to transporter amounting to INR 75,000 • Disallowed adhoc 20% of indirect expenses including depreciation amounting to INR 12,908 without any basis • Disallowed genuine deductions claimed under chapter VIA amounting to INR 25,200 • Creditors amounting to INR 3,10,110 added to income despite making addition w.r.t. purchase of milk • Citing credits in current accounts amounting to INR 11,54,361 as unexplained income. Contentions of the Appellant The learned AO has issued the notice under section 148A proposing a variation in income citing material available on records suggests that the withdrawal of INR 1,01,90,000 from current account and deposit of INR 3,620 to current account without knowing corresponding source to be treated as unexplained income and accordingly should be taxed. Basis this, the order under section 148A was passed dated
30. July 2022 along with notice under section 148 was issued on 30. July 2022. Further in response to notice under section 148, the Appellant filed its return of income on 06. March 2023 (not filed earlier) and provided additional details vide submissions dated
06. March 2023 and 13. March 2023 as requested by learned AO in his notices under section 142(1) dated
28. February 2023 and under section 143(2) dated
09. March 2023. However, learned AO did not provide any show cause notice to the Appellant as to why the above-mentioned additions / disallowances should not be made. In this regard, the Appellant would like to mention that as a procedure, show cause notice should be given to the Appellant before to prove genuineness of the deductions claimed. However, the learned AO did not provide any show cause notice and passed the draft assessment order. Accordingly, the Assessment order should be quashed. Further the Appellant would like to mention that it has received intimation from NFAC that the case is selected for faceless assessment and accordingly the same will be done by NFAC refer attachment. Despite the same being transferred to NFAC, the Appellant kept on receiving notice from jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO. Additionally, the JAO also did not follow the procedure given under section 144B that draft order should be passed by learned AO under section 144B before passing final assessment order. The learned AO without passing draft order under section 144B, directly passed final order under section 147. Though the learned AO passed a draft order under section 144C without considering the fact that section 144C (procedure before DRP) is not applicable to the Appellant. Considering the above fact, the Appellant believes that entire Assessment should be considered to be invalid and the final assessment order should be quashed. Prayer The Appellant requests Hon’ble Panel to treat the Assessment as invalid considering that the Appellant was not provided with sufficient opportunity to make his case. The Appellant requests Your Honors to treat the income escaping assessment as invalid due to procedural irregularities. The Appellant requests your Honors to take the above on record and grant the Appellant an opportunity of being heard.”
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished his return of income for the period under consideration. As per the information available with the Department the assessee has made cash withdrawals of Rs.1,01,90,000/- from the Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and made cash deposit of Rs.3620/- in the same bank account. Order u/s 148A(b) was passed and notice u/s 148 and notice u/s 14(1) of the IT Act were issued to the assessee. After considering the reply/submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(3) by determining total income at Rs.26,14,041/-.
The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC against the above assessment order with a delay of 26 days. After considering the delay condonation application filed by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 26 days.
It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted that after receiving the assessment order the assessee fell ill and could not meet with his counsel, who was residing at a distance of 60 kilometres from the house of assessee. Ld. AR also Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which was not accepted by him and consequently the delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed in limine. Ld. AR further submitted that the appellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not furnishing the appeal within the prescribed time limit and therefore Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay of 26 days. Accordingly it was prayed to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished and case laws relied on by the assessee. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 26 days. We find force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit since the assessee was sick and could not contact/meet with his counsel for the purpose of preparation of appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal after condoning the delay of 26 days on merits of the case and deciding each and every ground/additional ground, if any, raised by the assessee as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce relevant documents/evidences/explanations to support the grounds of appeal. The assessee is further permitted to raise additional ground, if any, if he so desires. Since the effective ground i.e. ground no.1 is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for deciding the appeal afresh after condoning the delay, therefore, other grounds including additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are kept open and not adjudicated by us and the assessee is free to raise all those grounds before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC during the appellate proceedings.