Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee made substantial cash deposits of ₹58.60 lakhs, leading to reassessment and an addition of ₹16.19 lakhs under Section 69A by the AO for unexplained money. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 245 days, seeking condonation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging that the assessee was not heard on merits by the CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to cooperate and provide evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the matter should be restored to the AO for a fresh decision on merits when the assessee was not heard previously.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 148, 69A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, dated 19.03.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13.
The Registry has pointed out that there was a delay of 245 days in filing of the appeal. During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay along with an Affidavit, which is reproduced as under:-
I have considered the reasoning given in the affidavit and inclined to condone the delay.
The ld. DR did not have any objection for this condonation of delay.
Background facts: 5. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee had made cash deposits of ₹58,60,500/- in his bank account with State Bank of India, Patiala, during the financial year 2011-12. The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by the issuance of a notice under Section 148 dated 25.03.2019. In response, the assessee filed his return of income. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the cash deposits were out of (i) sale proceeds of agricultural land, (ii) agricultural income, (iii) past savings, and (iv) withdrawals from the same bank account. The assessee also relied on two sale deeds aggregating to ₹37,65,000/- and further claimed to have received ₹10,00,000/- from a friend, Shri Gurjit Singh. However, as the assessee could not substantiate the entire source of deposits with cogent evidence, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹16,19,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, treating the same as unexplained money and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 11.12.2019.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It is seen from the appellate order that several notices were issued to the assessee on different dates; however, there was no compliance, nor was any adjournment sought. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the matter and even otherwise, on merits also no case was made out for interference with the order of the Assessing Officer.
Submissions of the Departmental Representative (DR) 7. Before us, the ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee was given repeated opportunities before both the AO and the ld. CIT(A) but failed to furnish the necessary evidence. The ld. DR emphasised that mere filing of an appeal is not sufficient unless it is effectively pursued, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee & Another v. Union of India (118 ITR 461). It was contended that in view of the assessee’s continuous non-compliance, the appeal was rightly dismissed.
Before undersigned, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing.
Tribunal’s Observation and Decision 9. I have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee deposited substantial cash in his bank account and the AO required him to explain the sources. While certain sale deeds were filed, the balance deposits remained unexplained, leading to the addition of ₹16,19,000 under Section 69A. The assessee, though preferring an appeal, did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) despite repeated opportunities. It is well settled that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to substantiate the claim made by him.
At the same time, it is also a settled principle that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities. The assessee has not been heard on merits either by the ld. CIT(A) or before us. In the interest of natural justice, therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee shall cooperate and file the necessary evidence to substantiate his explanation regarding the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Result
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the open Court on 26/08/2025.