Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was time-barred by 167 days. The assessee sought condonation of the delay, citing assurances from a tax professional who missed the filing deadline. The tribunal condoned the delay, noting it was not due to the assessee's negligence. The case involves a cash deposit of Rs. 20,10,000 in old currency notes and another credit of Rs. 6,44,961 during the financial year 2016-17, for which the assessee failed to file an income tax return.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after noting that it was not due to the assessee's negligence but rather the failure of the engaged tax professional. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the matter should be remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 139, Section 148, Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Archana Kumari,…………..………….……..……Appellant C/o. Raj Kumar, Sri Ram Nursing Home, S.K. Puri, Patna-800001, Bihar [PAN:AQGPK0359J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….……...Respondent Ward-4(1), Patna, 4th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances by: Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: March 11, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: March 20, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 14th May, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The appeal is time barred by 167 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed condonation petition dated 07.01.2025 saying that she was assured by the tax professional, who was initially engaged to file the appeal within the 1 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Archana Kumari prescribed time limit but inadvertently missed the deadline for filing the appeal and she was not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals. When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee approached another tax professional to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 167 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, she pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay since the delay is not due to negligence on the part of assessee. Hence the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who is engaged in the business medicine. The assessee filed her return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 20.09.2019 in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, where she declared her business income and admitted tax at ‘NIL. On the basis of data analytics and information gathered during the phase of online verification under ‘operation clear money’, it reveals that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.10,05,000/- in her Axis Bank account bearing no. 3870101000403 and another Banak account bearing A/c. No. 914010001906148 (Joint Account) Rs.10,05,000/- in old currency Notes of Rs.500 & Rs.1000 in between 9th November, 2016 to 30th December, 2016 during financial year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18 aggregating to Rs.20,10,000/- and also an amount of Rs.6,44,961/- has also been credited during the relevant assessment year, but has not filed income tax return for AY 2017- (A.Y. 2017-2018) Archana Kumari 18 neither under section 139 nor in response to notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act and, therefore, the source of cash deposit in old currency remained unexplained. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act by recording reasons that entire cash deposit in the account of assessee during the period of demonetization has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and according notice under section 148 was issued on 05.09.2018 and served upon the assessee. Thereafter notice under section 142(1) dated 02.08.2019 was issued and served through ITBA Portal at registered email to submit relevant information/documents in respect of source of cash deposit. But the assesese failed to furnish any details relating to business activities, nature and source of income earned, details of bank accounts, etc. Thereafter a final show-cause notice dated 06.09.2019 was issued and served on the assessee. Getting no reply from the side of assessee, the assessment was framed by the ld. Assessing Officer by making an addition of Rs.26,54,960/- under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate her claim, but the appellant did not file the written submissions and did not represent the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 14th May, 2024.
At the time of hearing, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that ld. CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order by upholding the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, he pleaded to delete the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order by making an addition of Rs.26,54,960/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate her claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly (A.Y. 2017-2018) Archana Kumari co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.