Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A). The original assessment order was passed on 29.03.2022, making an addition of Rs. 1,62,86,000/- under Section 69A due to unexplained cash deposit. The present appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal. However, since the department had initiated proceedings under Section 148A(d) for the same assessment year and the assessee was participating in those proceedings, the appeal was held to have become infructuous and was dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal is infructuous due to initiation of proceedings under Section 148A(d) by the department for the same assessment year, despite condonation of delay.
Sections Cited
69A, 148A(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 336/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ratan Lal Yadav Cuke The ITO, Vs. Sarpanch Ji Ki dhani, Shikarpur, Ward-1(3), Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALPY6831C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, C.A. & Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 10 /09/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, Present appeal came to be presented on 03.03.2025, challenging order dated 17.12.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee, challenging assessment order dated 29.03.22022, relating to the assessment year 2017-18, came to be dismissed.
Ratan Lal Yadav, Jaipur. Vide assessment order dated 29.03.2022, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 1,62,86,000/-, on account of addition of the same amount u/s 69A of the Act, in view of the observations that the assessee had failed to explain source of the said amount deposited in his bank account.
Since this Registry raised a deficiency notice that the appeal is barred by limitation, the assessee subsequently filed an application seeking condonation of delay.
The appeal is stated to have been filed after delay of 3 days. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the appellant-applicant came to know of the impugned order on 03.03.2025.
The application seeking condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the appellant-applicant. Even though the applicant-appellant has alleged that email ID available in the record of the Income Tax Department belongs to some other person, it was for the applicant to specify as to whom the said email ID belongs, the reason being that Form 35 is submitted by the assessee therein specifying, as to at which address, notices/communication are to be communicated by the department.
Ratan Lal Yadav, Jaipur.
Be that as it may, when even Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the condonation of delay, the appeal having been filed only 3 days after the prescribed period, the application seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
When the appeal has been taken up for hearing on merits, it has been brought to our notice by Ld. AR for the appellant and Ld. DR for the department that the department has commenced proceedings against the assessee u/s 148A(d) of the Act, and that the appellant has been participating in the said pending proceedings for same assessment year.
In the given situation, Ld. AR for the appellant has candidly submitted that this appeal may be dismissed as having become infructuous, in view of the commencement of the proceedings by the department u/s 148A(d). Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the said submission. Result 8. In view of the above submission that the department has initiated proceedings against the assessee u/s 148A(d) relating to the same Assessment Year , this appeal is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous.