Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax which dismissed the appeal as not admitted due to a delay of 82 days. The assessee had also not complied during the Assessing Officer's proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to submit all necessary documents and comply with notices.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without deciding on merits, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity for a fresh assessment.
Sections Cited
115BBE, 234A, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Niteshkumar Gandabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Vs. Village Ranasan, Post Ziliya, Ward 1, At Ranasan, Patan Tal. Chanasma, Patan-384220. [PAN: ALTPP7508 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.V. Agrawal, AR Respondent by: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. D R. Date of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
Hon. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not deciding the appeal on merits and other evidences filed in support of grounds of appeal, of the case and dismissed the same on delay in filing the appeal.
2. Hon. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition made by A.O. of Rs. 10,11,000 being cash deposited in bank a/c during demonetization period in A.Y.-2017-18. In as much as, cash was deposited out of business receipts of trading in Ambuja cement and building material.
3. Hon. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming higher tax u/s 115BBE of the act charged by A.O. The deposits in bank account with Bank of Baroda is out of business receipts ad it is not out of Unsecured loans taken by assessee. 4. Hon. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming interest u/s 234A of Rs. 78,090 and u/s 234B of Rs. 5,77,866 charged by A.O.”
3. On perusal of the record, we find that there was also a delay of 82 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee did not furnish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted. We further note that the assessee had not complied even during the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 17.11.2025. (TR SENTHIL KUMAR) VICE-PRESIDENT () Ahmedabad; Dated 17.11.2025 MV