Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders of the AO and CIT(A) for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18. The AO initiated proceedings under Section 147 based on information about cash deposits in a cooperative society, leading to ex-parte assessments under Section 144 after the assessee's non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the assessee's status as a senior citizen and the interest of justice, remanded the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeals and whether to remand the case for fresh adjudication considering the ex-parte orders and assessee's circumstances.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148, 142(1), 69A, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by two (2) separate orders of first-appeal both dated 13.08.2024 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of respective assessment-orders dated 22.03.2022 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Years [“AY”] 2016-17 & 2017-18, the assessee has filed the captioned two (2) appeals on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memos (Form No. 36).
Page 1 of 4 & 70/Ind/2025 - AY:2016-17 & 2017-18 2. The registry has informed that there is delay of 78 days in both of these appeals and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay supported by affidavits. The contents of same are read over in court and it is prayed to condone delays in the light of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice. The Ld. DR does not have serious objections against condonation of delay. Having regard to the averments in conations-applications and affidavits and taking into account the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we condone the delay and admit these appeals.
The orders of lower-authorities were perused and deliberated. It emerged during hearing that the orders of AO as well as CIT(A) are ex-parte.
The AO initiated proceeding u/s 147 for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 on the basis of information in his possession revealing that the assessee made cash deposits in a/c with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society. During proceedings, the AO issued notices u/s 148 followed by notices u/s 142(1) but finding no response from assessee, the AO noted non-compliant attitude of assessee and made ex-parte assessments u/s 144.
The AO made additions of Rs. 65,07,890/- and Rs. 38,16,263/- respectively in AY 2016-17 & 2017-18, treating the amounts of bank deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A. Before CIT(A) also, the assessee has remained
Page 2 of 4 & 70/Ind/2025 - AY:2016-17 & 2017-18 non-compliant. During discussions, Ld. AR for assessee admitted assessee’s lapse in representation at the lower level but, however, requested that the assessee is a senior citizen and suffering from hypertension and diabetes.
He prayed that looking to the position of assessee and in the interest of justice, an opportunity may be given to assessee by restoring these matters back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication. He submitted that the assessee was engaged in business of ready-made garments and the impugned deposits in bank a/c were related to assessee’s business activity, therefore they do represent turnover of assessee and not income. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has collected all details and ready to make full submissions for satisfaction of AO so that the AO can tax correct amount of income.
Ld. DR for revenue submitted that he would have no objection against remanding these cases to AO but the bench must give stricter direction to assessee.
We have considered submissions of both sides and carefully perused the orders of lower-authorities. We have already noted the precise facts in earlier paras. After a careful consideration of facts; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matters are restored at the level of AO, we remand these matters back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee and subject to the condition that the assessee shall pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- in each case to ‘Prime
Page 3 of 4 & 70/Ind/2025 - AY:2016-17 & 2017-18 Minister National Relief Fund’ and submit receipts to AO. Needless to mention that the AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 15/10/2025