Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits during the demonetization period. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, with the assessee citing medical exigency (jaundice) as the reason for the delay. The assessee is a partner in two partnership firms, and the disputed deposits were allegedly related to these firms, not his individual account.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the medical condition supported by a certificate. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's contention that the additions should not be in his individual capacity needs verification.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned on grounds of medical exigency? Whether the additions made in the assessee's individual capacity were justified, or if they pertained to partnership firms?
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 01.12.2023 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. Because the assessee's case was selected for scrutiny assessment by the AO due to cash deposits reflected in the bank account during the demonetization period, leading to the issuance of hearing notices. 2-Because it is further submitted the regarding this account no. 09712151000136 (Oriental Bank of Commerce, Aashiyana Br., Lucknow) belong to assessee individual account and other above accounts are not related to assessee but its belongs to M/s WARIS CONSTRUCTION (A/c No. 51791131002387 Oriental Bank of Commerce, Aashiyana Br., Lucknow) and M/s RIMJHIM CONSTRUCTION (A/c No. 5 1791131002370 Oriental Bank of Commerce, Aashiyana Br., Lucknow). Cash deposited in this account are not been considered as my cash deposit. Copy of all above accounts are enclosed.”
2. The present appeal is barred by limitation for 160 days. The assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay on the ground of medical exigency. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application seeking condonation of delay. He contended that the applicant has been suffering from jaundice and drew our attention to the medical certificate issued by Medshine Hospital, Lucknow. He further contended that the appellant was under medical treatment for serious jaundice illness and had been advised complete bed rest by the doctor. Therefore, the delay in filing the present appeal was inadvertent and occurred due to this medical exigency.
3. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue opposed the submissions and contended that the assessee ought to have filed the appeal within the time prescribed under law. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has furnished a certificate from the concerned hospital along with the prescription dated 18.01.2024. As per the medical prescription dated 26.01.2024, the assessee was advised to get admitted to the hospital, and vide certificate dated 02.02.2024, the assessee was advised to undergo various tests. It is certified medical doctor that the assessee had been suffering from jaundice from 27.01.2024 to 02.02.2024 and was advised complete bed rest. Taking into consideration the medical reports of the assessee, we are of the considered view that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee’s failure to file the present appeal within the prescribed time. We, therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC) hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits.
Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the authorities below have grossly failed to appreciate the facts in the right perspective. He submitted that the assessee is a partner in two partnership firms, namely, M/s. Waris Construction, having Account No. 51791131002387 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Aashiyana Branch, Lucknow, and M/s. Rimjhim Construction, having Account No. 51791131002370 with the same branch. He further contended that, had the authorities below properly considered the material available on record, there would have been no occasion to make the addition in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity.
6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) contended that no such submissions were made before the lower authorities. He further submitted that, despite multiple opportunities having been provided, the assessee failed to avail the same.
We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material on record. It is seen that there was no representation on behalf of the assessee before the lower authorities. The contention of the assessee that the addition could not have been made in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity requires to be verified at the end of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of natural justice, we deem it proper to restore the assessment to the Assessing Officer, hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside the assessment is restore to the file of the Assessing Officer for making assessment afresh, after verifying the correctness of the claim of the assessee that the accounts which are subject matter of the assessment were in fact belonging to the partnership firm. The AO would verify whether the said amount has been disclosed in the accounts of the respective partnership firm and frame the assessment afresh in accordance with law. Grounds of appeal
of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/11/2025.