GURDEEP SINGH H.NO.25, WARD NO.2 VILLAGE MOJUKHERA TEHSIL ELLENABAD ,HARYANA vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNITS NFAC DELHI JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 SIRSA , HARYANA

The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted before us that the assessee is an agriculturists having 16 Acres 4 Kanal agricultural land and besides that he had been cultivating the land measuring 28 acres of land of different persons by taking it on lease. He is a non-filer, since he had no taxable income. 3.1 During the year under consideration, the assessee received a notice u/s 148 for deposit of the cash in two bank accounts with Axix Bank Ltd, wherein the cash deposits in both the bank accounts were Rs. 2,00,11,818/- and on receipt of notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income declaring an income of Rs. 8,748/- on 08.02.2024. 3

2 Further, our attention was invited to the fact that, though, in the assessment order, it has been stated by the Assessing Officer that no compliance was made through show cause notice, dated 30.01.2024 as issued by the Assessing Officer, but it was brought to our notice that on receipt of the show cause notice, issued by the Assessing Officer, dated 30.01.2024, a detailed reply alongwith relevant documents, with regard to the self-agricultural holding and land taken on lease from different parties, alongwith their jamabandi, khasra, Gardavari, copy of the bank statements and month wise cash flow were submitted which is placed on record. It was contended that the Ld. AO has erred in not discussing that reply and for which the necessary evidence of filing the reply alongwith annexures by way of email has been enclosed and also placed on record. 3.3 It was further contended that the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which was late by 54 days. It has wrongly been mentioned that there is delay of 82 days, because the period of 30 days have to be excluded during which, the appeal can be filed and the reason for delay were adequately explained, which have been reproduced by the CIT(A) in paragraph two, page 2 of the order. 3.4 It was further contended before us, that notice u/s 221, dated 27.04.2024 for payment of taxes was issued by the Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Sirsa for payment of disputed demand and only then it came to the knowledge of the assessee that some order has been passed by the AO. In fact, assessment order was also not served by way of personal service or by way of post. In this respect, an affidavit of the assessee has been filed before us, contending that the earlier counsel namely, Sh. Surinder Kumar Bansal did not intimate him about the order passed by the AO as it was sent on his portal and it was only when the notice u/s 221, dated 27.04.2024 was received by the assessee from the AO regarding the payment of disputed demand then, the assessee obtained the copy of the assessment order and filed the appeal before the CIT(A) immediately, for which, detail is as under:- i). The order of AO received through Income tax portal 09.02.2024 ii). Appeal had to be filed before CIT(A) 10.03.2024 iii). Appeal was filed on 03.05.2024 iv. Delay 54 days

The Ld. CIT (DR) on account of condonation of delay by 54 days contended that when the assessee had engaged a counsel, the counsel should have intimated the assessee concerned for appropriate action and argued that the decision be taken by the Hon'ble Bench on merit.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, we find that the delay is only of 54 days and considering the facts as given in the affidavit by the assessee and also taking note of the fact that the notice u/s 221, dated 27.04.2024 placed at page 172 of the Paper Book, was served on the assessee for payment of disputed demand. Thereafter, on 2nd of May 2024, the assessee deposited the fee of Rs. 1000/- for filing the appeal and on 3rd of May 2024, the appeal was filed. Considering the facts and arguments of both sides, we deem it to be appropriate to condone the delay.

On merits, it was argued before us that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any decision on merits and has out rightly dismissed the appeal on account of delay. It was further brought to our notice that as stated above that detailed reply alongwith number of documents were filed before the AO and copy of the reply alongwith annexures was submitted to the AO and copies of which have been placed before us. The Assessing Officer has passed the order without considering the said detailed reply, alongwith necessary evidences. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has not discussed anything on merits. Thus, it was argued before us that the case of the assessee may, please, be set aside to the file of the AO to be decided denovo after considering the reply of the assessee in the interest of justice and equity. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of CIT(A) and has not disputed the fact as stated by the Ld. Counsel. 8. We have considered the assessment order, order of CIT(A), Paper Book submitted by the Ld. Counsel and arguments of both the sides. We find that the assessee has furnished a reply to the AO on 06.02.2024 in response to show cause notice issued on 30th of January 2024, for which, the necessary evidences have been filed and it appears that it has escaped the attention of AO concerned while passing the order. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also that the detailed reply as submitted, by the assessee explaining the source of bank deposits, which has not been considered by the AO or by the CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to set aside the case to Assessing Officer to be decided denovo, the assessee is free to file reply/submissions during the course of such proceedings.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/04/2025. राजपाल यादव

अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File