Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a 62-year-old individual, filed an appeal with a delay of 69 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not using an email ID, not receiving the CIT(A)'s order at her registered address, and not being conversant with the faceless assessment procedure. The dispute concerns an addition of Rs. 4,79,000/- made by the CIT(A) for unexplained cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's age, limited technical knowledge, and the circumstances explained in the affidavit, there was sufficient cause for the delay. The principles of natural justice require affording the assessee an opportunity to present her case. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the impugned order was set aside for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the addition for unexplained cash deposits was justified without proper opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE, 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:
The learned CIT(A) has erred in making addition U/s. 69A of the IT Act for the cash deposit in the bank account amounting to Rs. 4,79,000/-.
The Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the assessment order without issue of show cause notice.
3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the assessment order without referring Sec. 115BBE in assessment order and giving the effect in Computation Sheet only.
4. It is therefore prayed that all the evidence are on record, hence the assessment order being excessive and unjustified be set aside. At the threshold, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted 2. that there is a delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal, as communicated by the Registry vide its letter dated 09.02.2025. In support of the prayer for condonation of delay, the assessee has filed a duly sworn affidavit explaining the circumstances which occasioned such delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the affidavit and submitted that assessee was not using e-mail ID and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was not received on the registered address of the assessee and therefore, could not respond to faceless procedure The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under:
“Sub.: Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing of appeal for A.Y 2017-18 Reg : NITABEN BHARATKUMAR PAREKH 33 ROYAL BUNGLOWS, OPP LAXMI BUNGLOWS VESU SURAT 395007, Gujarat. PAN. ADLPP7174Q I the undersigned, Smt. NITABEN BHARATKUMAR PAREKH, want to inform your honour that the appeal in my case could not be filed in time due to the following reasons:- (1) I am at the age of 62 Years. (2) I am not using any email id. Order of CIT(A) is not received at my registered address. (3) I am not able to respond any notice under Faceless Assessment Model. (4) I also admitted that in case of hearing notice before any govt. authority, I will prefer to receive the notice at my registered address, so I can came to know about the status of the proceedings.
It is prayed that the above delay in filing the appeal may please be condoned as the same has occurred due to above reason. We shall always remain grateful for the act of kindness. Whatever stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I know that to make false affidavit is an offence.” 2.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, relying upon the aforesaid affidavit, submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to genuine and bonafide reasons. He thus prayed that the delay be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the condonation of delay, contending that the assessee ought to have been vigilant and cannot plead ignorance of proceedings as an excuse.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is a settled principle of law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123], that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. A liberal approach is warranted while considering applications for condonation of delay, provided the explanation offered does not smack of mala fides or deliberate inaction.
3.1. In the present case, the assessee is a senior citizen of 62 years, admittedly not conversant with the faceless e-proceeding mechanism and digital communications through e-mail. The record reveals that the appellate order was not received at her registered postal address and that she had no means of knowing about the disposal of her appeal. Considering her age, limited technical knowledge, and the short span of delay of 69 days, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period.
3.2. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and guided by the judicial principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions, we deem it just and proper to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, admitted for adjudication on merits.
Coming to the merits of the case, the dispute pertains to the addition of ₹4,79,000/- towards unexplained cash deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) noted in his order that no supporting evidence or explanation regarding the source of the said cash deposits was furnished during the appellate proceedings, and accordingly, he upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
4.1. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that only a single notice dated 06.11.2024 was issued by the CIT(A) through electronic mode. As the assessee was not operating any e-mail ID and was unaware of the proceedings, no compliance could be made. It was further submitted that even her Authorised Representative did not communicate the pendency of the matter to her. In such circumstances, there was no deliberate default on the part of the assessee but only an inadvertent lapse arising out of lack of communication.
4.2. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the principle of natural justice demands that the assessee be afforded one more opportunity to present her case. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for de novo adjudication after considering the submissions and evidences, if any, furnished by the assessee. The CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard and shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The relevant ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.
In the result, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated hereinabove.