Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed late by 48 days. The assessee claimed to be semi-illiterate and unaware of the proceedings, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) and AO. The lower authorities based their orders on non-compliance with notices and unexplained cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering it in the interest of substantial justice. While not fully convinced by the assessee's reasons for inaction, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned on the grounds of illiteracy and unawareness of proceedings, and whether the assessee should be granted a final opportunity to present their case on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 69A, 115BBE, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, 271AAC, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: S/SHRI SANJAY GARG & NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member
The above appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)] dated 7.6.2024 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) arising out of the order of passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) under section 144 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in passing the impugned order, ex-parte.
2 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in making an addition of Rs.54,35,064/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act.
3. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in invoking the provisions of S.115BBE of the Act.
Alternatively, and without prejudice, the addition may kindly be limited to the peak credit amount.
5. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in charging interest U/S.234A/B/C/D.
6. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty U/S.271AAC of the Act which is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts of the case.
The Registry has flagged the appeal of the assessee as being barred by limitation by 48 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating that the reasons for the impugned delay that the assessee is a semi-illiterate and not conversant with technology, income tax law and legal proceedings. That owing to the lack of knowledge, the assessee was unaware of the issuance of notice under section 250 of the Act and consequential passing of ex parte orders. That immediately, when the assessee came to know about passing of the impugned order, due procedures undertaken and filed the present appeal. That the impugned delay is neither intentional nor due to negligence, and therefore, given the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, the impugned delay in filing the appeal may be condoned, the case of the appeal may be adjudicated on merit.
4. On merits, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the lower authorities passed the impugned orders primarily on the ground that there was no compliance with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the sources of 3 various cash deposits made in the bank accounts were neither explained nor offered for taxation. However, it was submitted that the assessee was unaware of the pendency of the proceedings before the income-tax authorities and had no knowledge of any ex parte orders being passed. The learned counsel further contended that the assessee has a fair case on merits and may be granted an opportunity to present his case before the learned CIT(A), where he shall furnish all necessary details and explanations to substantiate his claim.
On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities, emphasizing that the assessee had failed to appear both before the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A), and thus the ex parte orders were justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, considering the submissions of the assessee regarding the delay in filing the appeal, and being satisfied with the reasons stated, we condone the delay.
We note from the record that the assessee had deposited certain cash in his accounts with ICICI Bank and State Bank of India. However, no return of income was filed by the assessee, nor was there any response to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Act, as noted on pages 2 and 3 of the assessment order. The same state of non-compliance continued before the learned CIT(A), resulting in the ex parte dismissal of the appeal.
While we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for its inaction during the assessment and appellate proceedings, in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the view that one final opportunity may be given to the assessee to present his
8. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the matter afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee to present his case and file the necessary details and explanations. The assessee shall deposit the cost of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and submit the proof of payment before the ld.AO.
The assessee is also directed to cooperate fully in the proceedings and to respond to all notices and directions issued by the lower authorities, failing which the AO shall be at liberty to decide the case on merits, based on material available on record.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on 18th June, 2025.