SANT HARAJINDAR SINGH,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERITO-2(4), PILIBHIT-1, PILIBHIT

ITA 565/LKW/2024Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 August 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation without deciding the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a sadhu, filed an appeal against an assessment order beyond the prescribed time limit. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to the inordinate delay of 251 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained to warrant condonation, and if not, whether the appeal should be dismissed on limitation grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 249(2),Section 249(3),Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW

For Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29/07/2024 for the assessment year 2015-16. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: -

1.

The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,09,47,800/- being unexplained cash deposit in bank u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT(A) has passed the order without properly appreciating the facts and ignoring the fact that the appellant is sadhu who does not

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →