Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 based on information about cash deposits of Rs. 10,22,300 in the assessee's bank account. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's lack of response to notices. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay.
Held
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the delay and the assessee's explanation regarding email access issues, found that justice requires deciding the matter on merits. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication, subject to the assessee paying costs.
Key Issues
Condonation of significant delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the subsequent adjudication of the addition made under section 69A on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 69A, 143(2), 142(1), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: Present appeal arises out of order dated 26.04.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-5, Delhi for AY 2012-13 on following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the delay in filing the appeal before Your Honours may please be condoned and the appeal of the appellant may please be restored back with the direction to the CIT (A) to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirmation the addition of Rs 10,22,300 under P a g e | ANIS AbdulkadarNakhawaji section 69A of the Act representing cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant.” Brief facts of the case are as under:
An information was received by the Ld. AO that assessee deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 10,22,300/- in his bank account apart from the salary income of Rs. 9,74,752/-. Accordingly, proceedings u/s. 147 was initiated and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2019. It is noted that there was no response from the assessee except for that fact the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 4,14,180/-. The notices issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) show causing assessee to comply with the question was never answered by the assessee.
2.1. Ld. AO thus, added the cash deposited in the bank account of Rs. 10,22,300/- in the hands of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings issued multiple notices however, there was no response from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) thus, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
P a g e | No. 7231/Mum/2025 ANIS AbdulkadarNakhawaji ANIS AbdulkadarNakhawaji
The Ld. AR submitted that, The Ld. AR submitted that, there is delay of of 503 days in filing the present appal before this T filing the present appal before this Tribunal. He placed reliance He placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the filed by the assessee which states as under: which states as under:
P a g e | No. 7231/Mum/2025 ANIS AbdulkadarNakhawaji ANIS AbdulkadarNakhawaji
P a g e | ANIS AbdulkadarNakhawaji 4.1. The Ld. AR submitted that assessee provided e-mail id which was not very often accessed by him and, therefore, the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) went unnoticed. The Ld. AR submitted that, it was in these circumstances that the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) also went unnoticed, thereby causing the delay. He submitted that there is good case on merits of the issue and thus, prayed for the delay to be condoned and appeal may be heard on merit.
4.2. On the contrary, the Ld. DR, vehemently, objected to the condonation of delay as the assessee is a persistent defaulter.
We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in the light of record placed before us.
From the affidavit reproduced here in above filed by the assessee, it is noted that, assessee provided e-mail id which is not regularly accessed by him. However, it cannot be ignored that SMS is always sent to the assessee whenever there is an intimation or a notice issued as an alternative mode of communication. Assessee being educated and employed in Saudi Arabia since 2012, was responsible to the follow ups regarding the proceedings filed before the Ld. CIT(A) from time to time. We therefore, did not agree that assessee was absolutely unaware above the notices issued on the impugned order having passed.
5.1. However, considering the fact that justice has to be renderedthe issue on merits needs to be decided. In the interest
P a g e | ANIS AbdulkadarNakhawaji of justice,we remit this appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- being paid to the Legal aid cell of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Assessee is directed to file affidavit of cost having deposited with the office of Ld. CIT(A) as a consequence of which notice will be issued to the assessee.
5.2. Ld. CIT(A) thereafter, is directed to considered the issue on merits. In accordance with law. Needless to say that, proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee.
Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28/01/2026