KALI KINKAR MANI,PURNEA vs. NFAC, DELHI
Facts
The assessee, engaged in business, had cash deposits of Rs. 19,70,81,500. The case was reopened under Section 148, and an addition of Rs. 1,57,66,520 was made as undisclosed receipts. The assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A) with a delay of 118 days.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the assessee's ill health, which was beyond their control. Technical lapses should not override substantive justice, and the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the case adjudicated on merits. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 148 of the Act, Section 144, Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH-PATNA
Before: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member ITA No.340/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kali Kinkar Mani…..…….………………. ……………..…..........……….Appellant 155, Mahaboob Khan Tola, Purnia, Bihar – 854301. [PAN: ARYPM9775F] vs. NFAC, Delhi………………….…………..……. ……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Kapil Narayan Jha, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : September 22, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : October 16, 2025 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.10.24 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014–15. 2. The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 202 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the petition for condonation of delay, we find that due to chronic disease and complete bed rest as per doctor’s advice, the assessee could not able to file the appeal timely before us and we note that the reasons cited are valid and were beyond the control of the assessee. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.
ITA No.340/Pat/2025 Kali Kinkar Mani
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business activity. Based on AIMS information, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of Rs.19,70,81,500/- in corporation bank during the year under consideration. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act 30.03.2021. The assessee could not file the response of the notice on due date due to ill health suffered during Covid period. The assessment of the assessee was completed u/s 144 by making addition of Rs.1,57,66,520/- as undisclosed receipts. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 118 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground that 118 days’ delay in filing of the appeal which was not condoned. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay of 118 days occurred due to illness (viral fever) of the assessee for several months and he was not aware of any notices issued and served online and the delay was purely unintentional. The ld. AR submitted that proper compliance could not be made before the authorities below and requested for another chance to prove his case before either of the authorities below. 6. The Ld. DR fairly stated that he would have no objection in case this matter was to be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have considered the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and perused the material available on record. We note from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that in Form 35, the assessee submitted the statement for the said delay and due to ill-health of the assessee for
ITA No.340/Pat/2025 Kali Kinkar Mani many years, the assessee could not participate before the lower authorities. We note that the various judicial forums have constantly held that technical lapses should not override the cause of substantial justice. Thus, in the interest of substantive justice, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to condone the delay of 118 days and adjudicate on the merit of the case after affording opportunity to the assessee of hearing. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings by submitting necessary explanations and evidences and the assessee, if required, may file new evidences u/r 46A of the I.T. Rules to substantiate his claim. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 16th October, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 16.10.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),
//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches
