Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was filed with a delay of 20 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to being outside the country and not receiving notifications from their previous tax consultant. The Tribunal condoned the delay.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to file evidence in support of their claim.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing and whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are justified.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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 28.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-2018, raising following ground:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in dismissing appeal of assessee without providing reasinable opportunity of hearing to assessee
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 35,39, 105/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I T Act 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and in thereby taxing entire unexplained cash at 60 percentage and levying surcharge at 25 percentage which is not applicable on above amount. 4. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals),NFAC may please be deleted. 2. At the outset, the Registry brought to the knowledge of the assessee delay of 20 days in filing the appeal.
3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the application of the assessee and submitted that assessee is outside the country and therefore, he was unable to keep track of the appeal on regular basis. He further submitted that he had not received any notification on the e-mail because primary e-mail address and mobile number associated with the profile were pertaining to earlier tax consultant but unfortunately he did not update anything regarding order passed. The assessee came to know about the order of the Ld. CIT(A) only after engaging new counsel to downloaded the order and inform the assessee to file the appeal against the same. Accordingly, the assessee filed impugned appeal on 20.05.2025 against the order dated 20.202.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) resulting into delay of 20 days. The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on time and accordingly, the delay in filing might be condoned.
We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has sufficiently explained the sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal. Accordingly, we condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication.
4.1 On perusal of the records, we find that the assessee did not comply before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has mentioned notice issue on five occasions all such notices were not complied on the part of the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing as under:
“5.4 The appellant has raised only a single ground stating that as the cash is deposited from the genuine source and appellant is authorized to collect the old currency during the demonetize period in terms of amended notification number S.O. 3408(E) dated the 8th November, 2016 issued on 13th November, 2016 it should not be considered as unexplained cash. The appellant has remained completely non- compliant during the Appellate Proceedings despite several opportunities of being heard afforded to the appellant. The notification appellant has placed reliance upon does not serve the appellant as the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the transactions made in the said bank account are accountedin his books and hence the cash deposits being business receipts, are not unexplained. It is trite to mention here that the burden of proof of lies with the appellant, however, the appellant has clearly failed to provide any details with regard to the business activity engaged such as agreement with Reliance Gas, details of commission received from Reliance Gas and ledgers etc, so the source of cash deposit is explained satisfactorily. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is not maintainable in the absence of any corroborative evidence and the contentions are hollow with no substance. Thus, this ground is dismissed.” 4.2 Before the assessee relied on the decision explaining the support of condonation of the delay. In our opinion, there was a justified reason for non-compliance for the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and provide one more opportunity to the assessee for filing evidence in support of its claim and accordingly, matter is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after considering submission of the assessee. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Grounds on merit are not required to be adjudicated upon at this stage.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.