Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's assessment for AY 2011-12 was completed ex parte under Section 144 read with Section 147, resulting in an addition of Rs. 49,01,000/- for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee filed an appeal against the ex parte CIT(A) order with a delay, claiming family bereavement and lack of communication from their previous counsel. The assessee contended that the deposits were from the sale of ancestral land.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 154 days in filing the appeal, applying the principle of liberal construction of "sufficient cause." It observed that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to examine the assessee's submissions and supporting evidence regarding the source of cash deposits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, instructing them to provide a proper hearing and examine the evidence.
Key Issues
The key issues were whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether the lower authorities had properly examined the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits during the ex parte assessment, ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
144, 147
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 dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2011–12, arising out of the assessment framed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 157 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit, explaining the reasons for delay. It has been submitted that the assessee became aware of the need to challenge the impugned order only on 04.12.2024 after carefully perusing the CIT(A)’s order. It has further been explained that the order of the CIT(A) was passed ex parte as the counsel representing the assessee did not communicate the notices of hearing and failed to submit any written submissions. The appellant also suffered a family bereavement due to the demise of his uncle, late Sh. Jai Singh, on 23.01.2025, after prolonged illness, which caused mental and emotional stress contributing to the delay in filing the appeal.
The Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee submitted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the necessary
2 documents and explanations before the lower authorities, and therefore, in the interest of justice, an opportunity may be granted so that the matter may be examined afresh at the end of the Assessing Officer. It was contended that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the matter is remanded back, whereas irreparable loss would be suffered by the assessee if such an opportunity is denied. The Ld. AR had submitted that there was sufficient reason for not persuing the appeal before this Tribunal and the assessee has filed the affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condone.
On the other hand, the Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) opposed the request for remand by submitting that sufficient opportunities had already been afforded during the course of the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings and yet the assessee failed to avail the same. It was accordingly argued that the assessee cannot be permitted to fill in the lacunae at this stage and that the order of the lower authorities deserves to be upheld.
We have considered the submissions and are satisfied that there exists sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji& Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), wherein it was held that the expression “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, the delay of 154 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Briefly, the facts of the are that the assessment in the present case was completed ex parte under section 144 r.w.s. 147 by making an addition of Rs. 49,01,000/- as unexplained cash deposits in the savings bank account of the assessee maintained with State Bank of Patiala, Kurukshetra.
Having condone the delay in filing the appeal we notice that the Assessing Officer had relied upon the information obtained regarding cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account. The assessee has contended that the account in question was jointly held with his brothers and that the deposits were linked to the sale proceeds of ancestral land sold by their father. However, these submissions and the supporting bank statements have not been examined either by the AO or by the Ld.
3 CIT(A). In our considered view, the nexus of the cash deposits with the alleged source requires proper verification at the level of the Assessing Officer.
It is a settled principle of law that no party should be condemned unheard and effective opportunity of hearing was to be granted to the assessee. Furthermore, it is also settled that additions cannot be sustained without cogent nexus between the material relied upon and the conclusions drawn.
8.1 In view of the above, and in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO shall examine the bank statements obtained, consider the submissions of the assessee regarding nexus with the sale of land, and thereafter reframe the assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration as directed above.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/08/2025