PUNNILATH MEERAS RASHEED,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO,WARD 3, ALUVA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 780/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 November 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 and remitted it back for a decision on merits. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal also remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to file evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee made large cash deposits during demonetization. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 by invoking section 115BBE due to non-appearance. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for AY 2017-18 due to delay, and partly allowed for AY 2019-20.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for AY 2017-18 on grounds of delay, and whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present evidence for AY 2019-20.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH - DB

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Hearing: 07.11.2025Pronounced: 25.11.2025

Date of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.11.2025 O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)” in short] dated 12.06.2025 and 05.08.2024 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2017-18 and 2019-20 respectively.

2.

The registry has noted 358 days delay in filing appeal for AY 2019-20 before this Tribunal. For the reasons stated in the petition alongwith affidavit, we find the reason as sufficient cause, hence condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication.

3.

Brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is an individual as per data available with the department has provided by the bank authorities the assessee had made large cash deposit in his Corporation Bank, Angamaly accounts during the demonetization. On analysis his bank account it was think that a cash deposit of rupees he was made during the demonetization. During the assessment proceeding despite notice none appeared for the assessee hence, assessment was completed under section 144 by invoking provisions of section 115BBE.

4.

The appellant challenged the order of the assessing officer for AY 2017-18 before the learned CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal in limine on account of delay of 1557 days in filing the appeal. For AY 2019-20, the ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.

5.

Now the appellant is in appeal before us. We have gone through the Hon’ble High Court order dated 19.01.2023 and certified copy received by the assessee, we find that there is no delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Hence, we remit this appeal for AY 2017-18 back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to hear the appeal on merits. Needless to say, the CIT(A) before proceeding to hear the appeal on merits will afford proper and adequate opportunity of the assessee.

6.

For AY 2019-20, we also find that the ld.CIT(A) has not given proper opportunity to file requisite documents/evidence [as per Ground Nos. C, F and para 19 of the impugned order]. Hence, we remit this appeal for AY 2017-18 back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to hear the appeal on merits. The CIT(A) before proceeding to hear the appeal on merits will afford proper and adequate opportunity of the assessee

7.

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th November, 2025 at Cochin.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →