Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against an addition of Rs.14,89,425/- and a penalty of Rs.3,09,853/- for AY 2011-12. There was a delay of five months in filing the appeals, which was condoned due to reasonable cause. The addition was made on account of cash deposits in a joint bank account, and the assessee failed to provide details to lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum addition, while the assessee failed on legal grounds due to non-compliance, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The penalty appeal was also restored to CIT(A) as it depended on the quantum addition.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals filed with a delay of five months should be admitted? Whether the addition made on account of cash deposit and the consequential penalty are justified given the assessee's non-compliance with notices?
Sections Cited
144, 147, 148, 142(1), 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
In the captioned appeals filed by the assessee has been filed against the quantum addition of Rs.14,89,425/- made by ld. Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2011-12 in the assessment order dated 21.03.2016 framed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act and A.Y. 2011-12 against the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs.3,09,853/-.
Registry has informed that there is delay of about five months in presenting the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay of five months in filing the appeal before this Tribunal in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382).
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the various grounds of appeal raising legal as well as merits of the case stated that on the legal ground assessee deserves to succeed as the addition has been made for the transaction carried out in the joint bank account held by the assessee and his wife and the transactions are duly disclosed by the assessee’s wife in her income-tax return. He however fairly accepted that the assessee failed to make any compliance before ld. Assessing Officer as well as before ld.CIT(A).
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. First we take up ITA No.1471/PUN/2025. We note that the assessee is an individual and based upon the information about cash deposit of Rs.14,89,425/- in the bank account held with Nanded Merchant Cooperative Bank, Nanded during F.Y. 2010-11, notice u/s.148 of the Act issued to the assessee on the valid reasons recorded followed by issuing of valid notices u/s.142(1) of the Act but the assessee failed to comply and did not file any return in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. As a result, ld. Assessing Officer passed the best judgment assessment making addition of total cash deposit of Rs.14,89,425/-. Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but then again failed to file any details and evidence in order to explain the source of cash deposit and ld.CIT(A) considering the continuous non- cooperation of the assessee confirmed the addition made by ld. Assessing Officer.
Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the alleged cash deposit is in the bank account jointly held by the assessee and his wife and that the alleged transactions have been duly considered in the income-tax return filed by the assessee’s wife who is engaged in business. He fairly admitted that due to non-compliance before both the lower authorities, the details could not be filed. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also stated that ld. Assessing Officer should have made enquiry before issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. We however fail to find any merit in this contention as assessee is shifting total onus on the Revenue authorities without making any compliance to the notices issued to him and also not filing the return of income in compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act. Therefore, assessee fails to succeed on the legal ground. However, considering the fact that assessee failed to appear before ld.CIT(A), we deem it proper to remit back the issues raised on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication to which ld. DR did not objected. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appellant is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A). Assessee is further directed to refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause.
Impugned order is set-aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Since we have restored the appeal pertaining to quantum addition in for A.Y. 2011-12 to the file of ld.CIT(A), the appeal relating to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for this very same assessment year is also restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) as the levy of penalty is dependent upon the quantum addition if any sustained in the hands of assessee. Impugned order is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.