Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for not condoning a delay of 222 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had initially filed an appeal under a new PAN, but was advised to file under the old PAN, leading to a delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay and condoned it. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to be vigilant.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, and if not, whether the delay should be condoned and the appeal restored for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 69, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH, PUNE
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessee by : Shri Akash Kumar Revenue by : Shri Kumar Manish Sinha-Additional CIT Date of hearing : 08.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 28.10.2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 which is arising out of order u/s 144 of the Act dated 11.07.2019 framed by the ITO, Ward 3, Panvel.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in not condoning a delay of 222 days in filing the appeal and consequently, dismissed the appeal.
The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and ought not to have dismissed the appeal inasmuch as he has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety and hence, the action of the CIT(A) is bad in law and needs to be reversed.
2. The CIT(A) erred in not deciding the following grounds of appeal on merits – "1) The Learned Assessing Officer, Ward-3, Panvel ("Ld. AO") has erred on facts and in law in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 1,17,35,330/- vide order u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by making the following additions and adjustments:
a) Addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 69 of the Act on high cash deposit- Rs.37,87,410/- b) Addition on account of unexplained credit u/s 69 of the Act on other deposits in SBI Bank, Murud Branch - Rs. 68,52,220/- c) Addition on account of unexplained cash deposits u/s 69 of the Act on the cash deposit during demonetization period- Rs. 10,95,410/- 2) The Ld AO erred at facts and in law in assessing the appellant without appreciating the fact that the appellant was unaware of notice was issued under Old FAN and the Ld. A male various additions in absence of information available to him 3) The appellant prays that the additions and adjustments made by the Ld. AO may be set aside and fresh assessment be done. 4) Without prejudice to the above, the Ld AO erred on facts and in law in taxing the entire cash deposits during the said year. 5) If your honour's are not inclined to delete the entire addition made by the Ld. AO, the appellant prays that the AO may be directed to allow us one more opportunity to present our case and fresh assessment be done. 6) The learned AO erred on facts and in law in making an addition on account of unexplained cash deposits other than demonetization cash deposits of Rs.37.87,410/- (Total Cash deposit during the year Rs.48,83,111/- (-) Rs. 10,95,410/- demonetization cash deposits) without appreciating the fact that the Appellant was unaware of notice issued under Old PAN and hence could not submitted any response before the A.O. 7) The learned AO erred on facts and in law in making addition without verifying the fact that the appellant has been registered under The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and they are providing credit facilities to members. And entire cash deposits during the year are received from members. 8) The Appellant prays that the addition made by the learned AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 69 on high cash deposits of Rs.37,87,410/- may be deleted. 9)The learned AO erred on facts and or faw or making on addition on account of unexplained credit of Other deposits of Rs. 65,52,220 without oppreciating the fact that the appellant was unaware of notice issued under Old PAN and hence could not submitted any response before the A.O. 10) The learned AO erred on facts and in law in making addition without verifying the fact that the appellant has been registered under The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and they are providing credit facilities to members. The Appellant prays that the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained credit wis 69 on other deposits of Rs.68.52,220/- may be deleted. 11) The learned AO erred on facts and in law in making an addition on account of unexplained cash deposits of Rs.10.95,410/- on cash deposits during the demonetization period without appreciating the fact that the Appellant was unaware of notice issued under Old PAN and hence could not submitted any response before the A.O. 12) The learned AO erred on facts and in law in making addition without verifying the fact that the appellant has been registered under The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and they are providing credit facilities to members. The entire cash deposited during the year are received from members. 13) The appellant prays that the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits u/s 69 on cash deposits during the demonetization period of Rs. 10,95,410/- may be deleted. 14) The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal" The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in la the CIT(A) ought to have considered the written submissions and paper book filed the appellants, and ought to have disposed of the grounds of appeal on merits. The appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated ground of appeal.
3. At the outset Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue raised on merits challenging the addition of Rs. 1,17,35,331/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act needs to be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication because Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 222 days (excluding Covid Period). He also submitted that the reason for delay are duly mentioned in Para 2 of the order.
On the other hand Ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessee who is an association of persons was having PAN issued in the category in the trust as AABTP4003F and the best judgement assessment was framed under this PAN by AO making additions u/s 69A of the Act at Rs. 1,17,35,331/- Prior to the passing of assessment order. The assessee had already obtained PAN under the category of Association of persons PAN AAFAP2554G. After passing of the Assessment order and on receiving the same, the assessee within statutory time limit of 30 days filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on 29.09.2019 under the new PAN. This appeal is still pending before Ld. CIT(A). Subsequently the assessee was advised that the appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(A) should move under the same PAN under which the assessment order has been passed. Following the advise the assessee filed another appeal under the old PAN before Ld. CIT(A) on 05.03.2022. After excluding the covid period there is a delay of 222 days. Considering the facts of the case, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the said delay and Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the request of the assessee before dismissing the appeal in Limine. We therefore condone the delay of 938 days including covid period and restore the issue raised on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication after duly providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and decide in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds raised
by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of April, 2025.