Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessment order for AY 2012-13 raised additions of Rs. 51,84,000/-, including unexplained money under Section 69A and short-term capital gain. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to failure to produce corroborative evidence. The assessee filed an appeal to the ITAT with a delay of 235 days and sought condonation of delay citing medical reasons.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, imposing costs of Rs. 3,000/- for delay condonation and an additional Rs. 5,000/- due to the assessee's negligence during assessment and appellate proceedings. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
The key issues were the condonation of a 235-day delay in filing the appeal based on medical grounds, and whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer given the assessee's non-compliance and negligence during previous proceedings.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 69A, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
On 31.03.2024, Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as regards assessment order dated 13.11.2019, relating to the assessment year 2012-13.
The assessment order reflects that total taxable income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 51,84,000/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. ITO Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), by making additions of Rs. 12,14,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, due to unexplained money , and of Rs. 39,70,000/-, because of short term capital gain to the assessee.
Assessee challenged above said assessment order, but Learned CIT(A) dismissed the same, while observing that the assessee had failed to discharge his onus by producing corroborative evidence either during assessment proceedings or during appellate proceedings.
Arguments heard. File perused.
At this stage it may be mentioned here that the appeal having presented on 21.01.2025, the Registry made a deficiency note that it was barred by limitation having been filed after 235 days of the prescribed period. To seek condonation of delay, assessee has filed an application. During pendency of the matter, the assessee his filed a fresh attested affidavit dated 12.03.2025.
On the point of condonation of delay, Ld. AR for the assessee- applicant has submitted that the applicant was unwell and as such he remained under treatment of three different doctors, who advised him complete bed rest from 19.07.2024 to 25.07.2024, 03.10.2024 to 23.10.2024 & 05.11.2024 to 19.11.2024.
Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. ITO 7. Ld. AR for the applicant-assessee has referred to the affidavit of the applicant in order to justify the delay in filing of the appeals beyond the prescribed period. As submitted by Ld. AR, the assessee was suffering from various diseases like Ulcerative colitis, spinal card paid and spondylities, as well as blood pressure, hypertension. He has further submitted that the assessee- applicant is still not keeping good health. Accordingly, Ld. AR has requested for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
As noticed above, the impugned order was passed by Learned CIT(A) dated 31.03.2024. Admittedly, the appeal was to be filed within 60 Days of the date of communication of the impugned order.
The assessee-applicant has submitted certain photo copies. Firstly, there is photocopy of medical certificate for the period from 19.07.2024 to 25.07.2024, issued by Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Govind Nagar (West), Jaipur. Surprisingly, this certificate does not bear date of its issuance. It is not believable that Medical Officer of government hospital would issue any medical certificate without writing the date of its issuance.
Then there is a prescription slip dated 03.10.2024 issued by Shri Balaji Doctor’s Chamber & diagnostic Center. As per this slip, the patient Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. ITO complained of pain in spine and accordingly, he was advised medicines and medical bed rest. However, there is no mention that the assessee-applicant was advised complete bed rest. Even the period of bed rest does not find mention in this prescription slip.
Photocopy of another medical certificate purported to have been signed by Dr. Lokesh Sharma has also been submitted. It pertains to the period from 05.11.2024 to 19.11.2024. However, this certificate also does not bear the date of his issuance. Even column meant for signatures of the patient is also lying blank.
What kind of evidentiary value can be attached to the medical evidence submitted on behalf of the applicant on the point of condonation of delay? But, it may be mentioned here that in the course of arguments, Ld. DR for the department has not controverted the averments put forth in the affidavit of the assessee.
As noticed above, the dispute pertains to additions, in total to the tune of Rs. 51,84,000/-. While dismissing the appeal, Learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee-applicant had failed to produce corroborative evidence. Ld. AR Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. ITO for the assessee-applicant submits that in case delay in filing of the appeal is condoned only then the assessee would be able to produce all the relevant material, which he could not produce during the appellate proceedings and also before Assessing Authority. Having regard to the issues involved, considering the affidavit of the applicant, and keeping in view the nature of medical evidence submitted by the applicant, as discussed above, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeal, but, subject to costs.
The application seeking condonation of delay is allowed, but the applicant is burdened with cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited with “Prime Minister National Relief Fund”.
It is significant to mention that Ld. AR for the appellant and Ld. DR for the department advanced arguments in the appeal as well, today itself.
Ld. DR for the department has pointed out that during assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to file any return of income in respect to the notice u/s 148 of the Act; that he also failed to respond the show cause notice, what to say of submission of documents and other details required by the Assessing Officer.
Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. ITO Ld. DR has also pointed out that even in the appellate proceedings despite opportunity, the assessee failed to produce any material or document in support of his claim.
As noticed above, Ld. AR for the appellant has put forth only one submission that opportunity of being heard be granted to the assessee to enable him to produce all the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer.
When the assessee was non compliant in the assessment proceedings, and he failed to produce any documents even in the appellate proceedings, this shows sheer negligence on the part of the assessee- appellant. But, having regard to the issues involved, we find deem it a fit case to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh. However taking into consideration sheer negligence on the part of the assessee, we deem it a fit case to burden him with additional cost of Rs. 5,000/-. We order accordingly. Result 19. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the files of the Assessing Officer for afresh decision, in accordance with law, after affording Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. ITO opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee to deposit of additional cost of Rs. 5,000/- with “ Prime Minister National Relief Funds”. Receipts regarding deposit of the above said costs of Rs. 3,000/- and 5000/- to be produced before the Assessing Officer before commencement of the proceedings on remand. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/03/2025.