Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a senior citizen and stamp vendor, did not file an income tax return for AY 2016-17 but had deposited Rs.1,36,09,500/- in her savings account. Her case was reopened under Section 147 read with Section 148, and the AO framed an assessment under Section 144B, treating the deposit as unexplained credit under Section 69A. The assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A) with a delay of 651 days, which the CIT(A) dismissed without condoning the delay, finding the explanation insufficient.
Held
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay (non-service of assessment order, incorrect contact details, and prompt filing upon receiving proper notice) to be bona fide. Considering the assessee's age, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 651 days and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing a meaningful opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in not condoning the 651-day delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's explanation regarding non-service of the assessment order and incorrect contact details.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144B, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
Date of Hearing : 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 13.11.2024 23.10.2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070325763(1) and relates to the AY 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is a senior citizen and carrying on the business of stamp vendors. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee could not file any return of income. Thereafter, on the basis of some information revealed that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.1,36,09,500/- in her savings bank account. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). In UlahannanMudakkalayilLeela, Ernakulam Page 2 of 3 response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed her return for the first time on 4.3.2022 declaring an income of Rs.3,37,130/-. Thereafter, the AO issued various notices to the assessee. However, the assessee could not appear and finally the AO framed the assessment u/s 144B of the Act adding the entire cash deposit as unexplained credits u/s 69A of the Act and framed the assessment. The assessment order is dated 26.3.2022. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 5.2.2024, meaning thereby there was a delay of 651 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Explaining the cause of delay, the assessee explained that the assessment order had not been served upon the assessee in time. It is also explained that the contact details as emerging in the web site of the department not belong to assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) treating the explanation of the assessee as non-sufficient, dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay.
Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee come up in appeal before us and contended that there was communication gap between the department and the assessee in as much as the order of assessment was not served at the address of the assessee.
Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of authorities below.
After considering rival submissions, we observe that before ld. CIT(A) it has been explained by the assessee that the contact details provided at the income tax web site did not belong to assessee. It is further seen that the assessee has duly filed the return of income immediately after the receipt of the notice u/s 148 of the Act, which was served upon the assessee via post and hence in response this fact shows that the explanation of the assessee is bonafide and she was vigilant in pursuing the tax matters. Ld. D.R. could not be able UlahannanMudakkalayilLeela, Ernakulam Page 3 of 3 to refute the submissions of the assessee vis-à-vis service of assessment order at the correct address of the assessee. Considering the facts of the case and the age of the assessee, we are of the view that heavens will not fall if one more opportunity could be given to the assessee, who is a senior citizen.Therefore, we restore this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits after condoning the delay of 651 days for filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, that ld. CIT(A) will grant meaningful opportunity to the assessee before passing any order.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Jun, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (Prakash Chand Yadav) Accountant Member JudicialMember Bangalore, Dated 23rd Jun, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5 Guard file By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Cochin.