CHIRANJI LAL SAINI,SIKAR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WD 1, SIKAR, SIKAR RAJASTHAN

Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of 584 days in filing of the appeal and 2 Chiranji Lal Saini dismissing the appeal without discussing the merits of the case without appreciating that a) the delay in filing of the appeal was due to travelling nature job of the appellant due to which the assessment order had not come to the knowledge of the appellant b) bonafide belief of the appellant that since the PAN error in bank account is clerical in nature, the same will get rectified suo moto and therefore dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay is against the principles of natural justice and equity. 2. Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that addition of Rs 7,94,48,717/- made under section 69A of the Act as unexplained money is incorrect and bad in law as the SBI bank account numbers 32503591663 and 32735092092 (EMI collection account) pertained to the company Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd (PAN: AACCH1807P) and not to the Appellant. Ld. CIT (A) has further erred in not appreciating that PAN of the appellant (ATQPS6306J) was incorrectly tagged to these accounts while opening of the bank account by the bank staff as the Appellant was the authorized signatory in these accounts being employee of the company and this mistake was duly corrected by the SBI Bank post income tax proceedings and therefore the addition is bad in law. 3. the appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 4. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was an employee of M/s. Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited and earned salary income. He did not file the return of income (“RoI”) for the year under consideration. The AO on the basis of information that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.7,94,47,717/- in current bank account bearing no. 32735092092 with State Bank of India, issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act dt. 27.03.2021 but no return was filed in response of such notice. During course of assessment proceedings, assessee vide letter dt. 29 March 2022 (PB 13-14) submitted that the transaction amount of Rs.7, 94, 48,717 /- in relations to bank account number 32735092092 is an EMI collection account of Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd (NBFC) of which he was an authorised signatory. These transactions are 3 Chiranji Lal Saini transaction of M/s. Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited and not his personal transaction. However the AO without considering this reply made addition of Rs.7, 94, 48,717/- u/s. 69A of the Act.

Against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Center [“CIT (A)”] which is delayed by 584 days. Due to the delay the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The assessee has, thus, preferred the appeal before us by taking the above two grounds of appeal. We have gone through the order of AO passed u/s. 144 of the Act, the submission of the assessee filed before Ld. CIT (A) and the e-mail received from SBI Bank & e-mail sent by Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. to SBI Bank which was before Ld. CIT (A). The assessee has also furnished the copy of the bank statement before us which is the basis for making the addition. After going through all these evidences & documents and the argument put forth by both the parties, we are of the view that Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal only because of delay in filing the appeal for which assessee has given justifiable reason for the delay and thereby affirming the huge addition of Rs.7, 94, 48,717/- without going into the merits of the case. Hence, the order passed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside on merits of the case.

After the finding given in para 4 supra, we would have set aside the issue to the file of the AO for decision afresh. However, since, all the material is available on record; we consider it appropriate to decide the appeal on merit to give quietus to the litigation to a small time employee. From the documents on record we note that the ld. AO made addition of Rs.7,94,47,717/- on account of cash deposit in current

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.

अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent.

आयकर आयु CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file.