MANJUBEN NATVARBHAI PATEL L/H OF NATVARBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BARDOLI, BARDOLI

It is therefore prayed that the assessment may please be quashed and/or addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted.

Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the curse of hearing of the appeal.”

The appeal filed by assessee is barred by 34 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has passed the order on 21.07.2022 and it was received on 01.08.2022. The assessee went to USA after assigning all the papers to the briefing counsel for filing appeal before Tribunal. However, the payment of the appeal fees was not made and it was ultimately made on 11.10.2022. Due to tax audit season and Diwali holidays, her earlier counsel could not forward the papers to M/s Rasesh Shah & Co., the AR of the appellant. Thereafter, the appeal was filed on 03.11.2022 with a small delay of 34 days. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted that the delay was not intentional and may be condoned in the interests of justice.

On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal may decide the matter as it thinks fit.

The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for AY 2012-13. As per the information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) found that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.65,85,000/- and Rs.6.90,000/- with Dena Bank and The Surat District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. respectively. The assessee had also made time deposit of Rs.4,00,000/-with HDFC Bank Ltd. Therefore, the AO had reasons to believe that income to the tune of Rs.76,75,000/- had escaped assessment u/s 147 of the Act. He issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019 after recording the reasons. The assessee did not file any return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued 5 statutory and show cause notices, but the assessee failed to comply with any of the notices. In absence of requisite details and explanation, the AO made best judgement assessment u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of materials available on record. He added cash deposit and other credit entries of Rs.80,15,833/- during the year under consideration u/s 69A of the Act. He also added undisclosed interest income of Rs.1,04,270/-. The AO assessed the total income of Rs.81,20,100/- as against returned income of Rs. Nil.

Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee filed a paper book and submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist. During the year, the appellant derived interest income from bank in addition to exempt income from agriculture. The income of the assessee was not taxable and hence he did not file return of income. The show cause notice issued to the assessee could not be complied as earlier tax consultant did not make compliance. The assessee is not conversant with intricacies of tax laws as he never filed return of income. The assessee died on 29.04.2021 during the course of the appellate proceedings. The assessee had filed part submission about the validity of re- assessment u/s 147 of the Act before the CIT(A). The assessee wanted to file additional submission with evidence on merits of the addition, but the CIT(A) passed the order after filing the rejoinder to the remand report. The CIT(A) passed the order in the name of dead person as he was not informed about death of the assessee during the appellant proceeding. The ld. AR submitted that assessee’s earlier counsel could not collect evidence as the assessee had died during the appellant proceedings. The ld. AR, therefore, requested to admit the additional evidence and set aside the matter to file of CIT(A) or AO for fresh order on legal ground as well as the merits of additions. The ld. AR relied on the decisions in cases of (i) Arvind Sahdeo Gupta vs. ITO, (2023) 153 /AY.2012-13 Manjuben Natvarbhai Patel taxmann.com 244 (Bom.), (ii) ITO vs. Shri Dharmesh Hasmukhbhai Mehta, in dated 23.08.2023 and (iii) Amar Jewellers Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2018) 92 taxmann.com 4 (Guj.).

On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submitted that the assessee was totally non-cooperative before the AO and did not comply to the notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notices. Hence, the AO has rightly made the addition of the cash deposit and other credit entries of Rs.81,20,103/- in the bank accounts. The CIT(A) has also rightly dismissed the ground on validity of reopening by observing that assessee did not file return of income u/s 139 or u/s 148 despite making huge cash deposit and other credits. The CIT(A) has also relied on relevant decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also carefully deliberated on the decisions relied upon by both parties. There is no dispute that there was substantial cash deposit and credit entries in the bank accounts maintained by the assessee with Dena Bank, HDFC Bank and The Surat Dist. Co-operative Bank Ltd. The assessee did not file any return of income u/s 139 or 148 of the Act. However, the Ld. AR submitted that the appellant died on 29.04.2021 during appellate proceedings before CIT(A). In support, he has filed copy of death certificate which is at page-12 of the paper book. He submitted that the Ld. Counsel of the appellant had filed part submission before the CIT(A) but he could not file complete /AY.2012-13 Manjuben Natvarbhai Patel details and supporting evidences as the same could not be collected due to the death of the appellant. He, therefore, requested to set aside the matter to the file of lower authority. Considering the death of the appellant during the appellate proceedings, we are of the view that one more opportunity needs to be given to appellant in the interest of substantial justice. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of AO because the original order was passed u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee is directed to be more vigilant and diligent in future and furnish all the details called for by the AO by not seeking adjournment without any valid reasons. For statistical purposes, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed in above terms.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 07/07/2025.