Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) after a delay of 306 days, citing ill health and lack of computer literacy. The delay was condoned by the ITAT due to reasonable cause. The Assessing Officer treated a difference of Rs. 12,81,455/- between bank deposits and declared income as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and taxed it under section 115BBE.
Held
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without proper adjudication, which is not empowered by law. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have passed a speaking order on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and whether the ITAT should restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 250(6) of the Act, 250(1) and 251(1) of the Act, Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 159/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shankar ITO, Ward-6(1), Patna Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: FQIPS9040D Appearances: Assessee represented by : N o n e Department represented by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 14-October-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 03-December-2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 04.03.2024. 1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation in filing the appeal by 306 days. However, the assessee has filed a petition before the ITAT requesting for condonation of delay of 306 days for the reason that he was not in a condition to file any reply because he was suffering from acute diabetes and hypertension along with arthritis in both knee joints with extreme weakness and a copy of the prescription has also been attached with the petition. He has also stated in the petition that he has no knowledge of computer and e-mail system ITA No.: 159/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shankar and, therefore, could not pay proper attention to any notices or order issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals). He has also stated that the delay in filing the appeal was purely unintentional and occurred due to circumstances beyond his control as he was not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and when he came to know about the same, he approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to which there is a delay of 306 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he has pleaded to condone the delay. 1.2. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned in the petition seeking condonation of delay and are of the view that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay of 306 days and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other.
2. For that the order of the learned assessing officer and also the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is bad both in law and on facts.
3. For that the order of the learned assessing officer and also the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is based on presumption, surmises and conjectures.
4. For that the learned assessing officer and also the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in passing the respective order of assessment and appeal without grant of the adequate opportunity of being heard in the matter.
5. For that the learned commissioner of income tax appeals has erred in confirming the assessed income Rs. 15,85,575.00 ITA No.: 159/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shankar
6. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.12,81,455.00
7. For that in any view of the matter the order of assessment is per se arbitrary and illegal and therefore, merit to be set aside.
8. For that other various grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing.