Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's income tax return for AY 2016-17 led to a Section 147/148 proceeding and an addition of Rs. 18,55,500/- for cash deposits under Section 69. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 621-day delay, which the assessee attributed to a 60% handicap and consultant's failure.
Held
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's handicap and the ex-parte nature of previous orders due to consultant's oversight, found the delay not deliberate. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify evidence and adjudicate on merits, ensuring an opportunity for hearing under principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
The key issues were the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal due to delay, the confirmation of disallowance of cash deposit under Section 68, and whether the matter should be remanded given the assessee's medical condition and alleged consultant's failure.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 68, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
(Assessment Year: 2016-17) Rameshbhai Jashubhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-7, Satkar Bunglow, K K Nagar Ward-4(2)(4), Road, Ghatlodia, Present ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad-380061 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AKSPP7877N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S V Agarwal & Shri Divya Agarwal, ARs Respondent by : Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R. 02.12.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 02.12.2025 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), ADDL/JCIT(A)-11, Mumbai on 13.09.2024 for A.Y. 2016-17.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
“1. Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-11 Mumbai has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal and he further erred in not deciding the appeal on merits of the case.
2. Ld. Addl./Jcit (A)-11 Mumbai has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 18,55,000 made by Ld. A.O. for cash deposited in bank a/c u/s 68 of the Act. In as much as, the said cash is deposited out of business receipt of proprietary concern of assessee “Sankalp Corporation”.”
The return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring total income at Rs. 2,33,090/- was filed by the assessee on 31.03.2017. As per the information received from investigation the Revenue initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and notice under Section 148 dated 18.03.2019 was served upon the Rameshbhai Jashubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year–2016-17 - 2 - assessee. No reply was filed by the assessee to the statutory notices and therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 18,55,500/- as cash deposit with HDFC treating the same under Section 69 of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed on the ground that there is a delay of 621 days in filing the appeal.
At the time of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is handicapped (60%) and was not able to know about the legal intricacies and was not aware where to approach and therefore, could not take any advisory from the right consultant. The Ld. AR submitted that before both the authorities the order passed is ex-parte, therefore, the matter may be remanded back as held in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-3, 2013-14 and 2015-16.
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee requires assistance in his day-to- day activities and is totally dependent due to his handicapped. The professional whom he has approached earlier does not follow the procedure properly and therefore, the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte and in fact, the delay before the CIT(A) was also not deliberate but due to the failure on part of the consultant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the evidences which was filed before us and adjudicate the issues on merit as per Income Tax Act. The Ld. AR who before the Tribunal today given an undertaking that the follow up before the Statutory Authorities Rameshbhai Jashubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year–2016-17 - 3 - will be properly complied. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 02/12/2025