KAILASH TYAGI,YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, YAMUNANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 698/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 August 2025AY 2012-13Bench: the final hearing.5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 27-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the medical explanation reasonable. On merits, noting the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper adjudication, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity to the assessee to furnish evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 22,20,000/- made under Section 69A and disputed the taxability of interest income from a cooperative bank. The appeal was initially dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-prosecution and lack of evidence, and the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 27 days, citing medical reasons.

What were the issues?

1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Validity of addition under Section 69A regarding cash deposits. 3. Taxability of interest income. 4. Restoration of matter for fresh adjudication due to ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 27-08-2025 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27 -08-2025 आदेश/Order

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dt. 24.2.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds:

1.

That the Order passed by CIT(Appeals) and Assessment Order is illegal beyond facts and uncalled for.

2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and Assessment Order has erred in making addition of Rs. 22,20,000/- on facts and in law.

3. That the addition made under section 69A for Rs. 2220000/- is illegal beyond facts and uncalled for. 4. That on facts and in law the amount deposited for Rs. 2220000/- in Joint Bank account is of her husband and out of agriculture Income earned by Late Husband Kailash Tyagi. 5. That no tax is payable on Interest Income from Central Cooperative Bank since the share of Interest is half being joint account and overall income including Interest is below taxable limit 6. That the Ld. A.O. has not provided copy of the reasons recorded 7. That the Ld. A.O. has wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the act. 8. That the appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing.

2.

At the outset it is noticed that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 27 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed along with supporting medical.

3.

The learned AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to unavoidable medical circumstances. The assessee was suffering from typhoid and was under medical treatment during the relevant period, and therefore, could not attend to the filing of the appeal in time. It was contended that the delay was not deliberate but due to sufficient cause.

4.

The AR further submitted that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal mainly for want of proper evidence and non-prosecution. He argued that the assessee is now willing to produce the relevant bank statements, certified copies of account, and other evidences to demonstrate that the cash deposits did not represent undisclosed income. He prayed that the delay may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer so that the assessee gets an effective opportunity to explain his case on merits.

5.

Per contra learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities. He contended that despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). The DR submitted that law assists only vigilant taxpayers and not those who remain careless of their rights. He thus argued that the orders of the authorities below should be upheld. However, he fairly left the issue of condonation of delay to the discretion of the Bench.

6.

I have considered the rival submissions of the learned AR for the assessee and the learned DR for the Revenue. The explanation offered by the assessee regarding medical illness is found reasonable and supported by documentary evidence. I am satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.

7.

On merits, I find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without proper adjudication. In the interest of substantial justice, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO shall re- adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate fully by furnishing all necessary evidences and explanations.

8.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 27.08.2025.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →