Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the order of the CIT(A) was delayed by 290 days due to the assessee's father's demise and personal medical issues. The sole ground of appeal pertains to an addition for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee also raised additional grounds challenging the validity of reopening under Section 147.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. However, the legal issue raised regarding the validity of reopening under Section 147 was dismissed as the assessee failed to respond to notices. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Validity of reopening proceedings under Section 147 and addition for unexplained cash deposits.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 23.02.2024 which is arising out the order u/s. 144 of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13 framed by ITO, Ward- 2(3), Jalgaon.
Registry has informed that this appeal is delayed by 290 days. An affidavit has been filed seeking condonation of delay. Perusal of the same indicates that the assessee has passed through series of problems. During the year his father expired. Thereafter, the Consultant who was looking after the Taxation work did not verify through on-line Website about the pending litigation and did not file any response. From 2024 onwards, the assessee had been facing various medical issues and has been admitted to hospital on multiple occasions. Proof with regard to the hospitalization has been filed. Considering the same, we find that the assessee was prevented from filing appeal in time due to reasonable cause and therefore placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The sole ground of appeal is regarding the addition for unexplained cash deposits of Rs.12,84,000/-. Apart from this issue raised in the grounds of appeal the assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 of the Act.
4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the reopening is invalid as the same was carried out on the basis of observation that the assessee had not furnished the return of income but actually the return of income was filed on 31st July, 2012 and therefore the reopening should be quashed. On merits he referred to the paper book running into 5 pages and stated that even though the order of both the lower authorities are ex-parte but still to avoid one more round of assessment and appellate proceedings issue may be decided by this Hon’ble Tribunal.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. As far as the legal issue raised by the assessee challenging the validity of initiation of reopening proceedings, we fail to file any merit for the reason that though the Ld. Assessing Officer has mentioned that the assessee had not furnished original return of income but the assessee failed to give any response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2019 and even though on subsequent date of hearing fixed on 09.08.2019, 20.08.2019, 07.10.2019 and 30.10.2019 the assessee failed to respond and therefore the Ld. Assessing Officer had no information about the return of income originally filed by the assessee. Though it has been contended by the Ld. AR that the return was filed with the Income Tax authority but then unless and until the assessee gives the information to the Ld. Assessing Officer about the return filed originally and also to respond to the notice issued u/s 148, the total burden of proof cannot be shifted by the assessee over to the Ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, the legal issue raised in the additional grounds of appeal is dismissed.
7. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, we observe that the assessee had not participated in the assessment proceedings and even failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Since, the matter pertains to F.Y. 2011-12 and source of cash deposits needs to be examined, we deem it proper to restore the issue on merits to file of Ld. Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication and the Ld. Assessing Officer shall provide proper opportunity to the assessee to file relevant details and then decide the appeal in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. The grounds raised on merits are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 28th day of March, 2025.