Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee made cash deposits during the demonetization period but failed to file a return for A.Y. 2017-18. Despite notices under Section 142(1), the assessee did not comply, leading the AO to make an ex-parte assessment under Section 144 and add Rs. 80,46,495/- under Section 69A. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this order due to the assessee's non-response.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a 166-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's medical reasons. Recognizing the assessee's non-compliance at earlier stages, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice and considering the substantial demand, provided a final opportunity for the assessee to present her case and documents to the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned; whether the addition under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits and credits was justified given the ex-parte assessment; and whether the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity.
Sections Cited
144, 142(1), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R
PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in I.T.A.No.225/VIZ/2025 Sanjukta Varanasi short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068108514(1) dated 29.08.2024 for the A.Y.2017-18 arising out of the order passed under section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 26.09.2019.
2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 166 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed the order in the case of the appellant on 29.08.2024. As such, the appeal against this order ought to have been filed on or before 28.10.2024. However, the appellant could file the appeal only on 15.04.2025 resulting in a delay of 166 days in filing the appeal.
On 10.10.2024, the appellant fell while climbing down the staircase at her home and injured her knee. The doctor applied slab to the knee and advised her to keep the slab for 6 weeks and to take complete bed rest for 6 months. As advised the appellant was under treatment and complete rest for 6 months. Therefore, from 10.10.2024 to 10.04.2025 the appellant was not in a position to attend to any other affairs (copy of treatment record is enclosed). Hence, the appeal could not be filed immediately. As soon as the condition of the appellant improved, she took necessary steps and filed the appeal on 15.04.2025.
3. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal was due to the reasons explained above which were beyond the control of the appellant. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the appellant respectfully prays the hon'ble ITAT to kindly condone the said delay of 166 days in filing the appeal and to pass appropriate orders in the interest of rendering substantial justice.”
On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee and medical records as well as the submission of the Ld. AR, we find that the assessee is Page. No 2
I.T.A.No.225/VIZ/2025 Sanjukta Varanasi prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 166 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 166 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs.
Brief facts of the case are that, assessee during the demonetization period has made cash deposits into the bank account but has not filed any return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. Hence, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 12.03.2018 requiring the assessee to file the return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. Further a letter dated 15.05.2019 was addressed to the assessee to submit the copy of the return of income filed, if any. In response to the said notice assessee neither complied with the notice nor submitted the information called for. Considering the non-compliances by the assessee, the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] framed the assessment under section 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs. 80,46,495/- under section 69A of the Act.
5. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO since assessee has not responded to any of the notice / opportunities provided to the assessee.
On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: -
“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.225/VIZ/2025 Sanjukta Varanasi 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte. Without prejudice to the above, 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.23,74,900 made by the assessing officer u/s. 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.56,71,595 made by the assessing officer u/s. 69A of the Act towards unexplained credits in bank account of the appellant.
Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”
Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 5 are general in nature and needs no adjudication.
Ground Nos. 3 & 4 are with respect to sustaining the addition of Rs.23,74,900/- as unexplained cash deposits and Rs.56,71,595/- as unexplained credits in the bank account under section 69A of the Act.
At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee. He further pleaded that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). He therefore prayed for one final opportunity before Ld. CIT(A) to submit the relevant documents with respect to the cash deposits and credit entries in the bank statements.
Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] strongly objected to the plea of the Ld.AR and vehemently argued that the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) has provided ample opportunities to the assessee as Page. No 4
I.T.A.No.225/VIZ/2025 Sanjukta Varanasi detailed in their respective orders. However, assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued by the Revenue Authorities. She therefore pleaded that the no more further opportunity should be granted and prayed of upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not fully complied with the notices before Ld. AO and has also not responded to the various notices issued to the assessee as detailed in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, considering the plea of the Ld.AR and considering the huge demand, we are of the considered view that assessee may be provided one final opportunity to substantiate the case before Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, that the assessee should cooperate with the remand proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the case based on the material available on record. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are statistically allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2025.