Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order which confirmed additions of Rs.13,98,782/- for increase in opening capital and Rs.5,78,000/- for cash deposit. The CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, and the appeal itself was filed with a delay of 338 days due to the assessee's sickness and the demise of his son.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the valid reasons. It set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) which had dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merit. The matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, confirming additions and dismissing the appeal without merit adjudication, was valid, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA SMC” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKAΤΑ
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG
order : 12.02.2025 ORDER The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.12.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
This appeal of the assessee is time barred by 338 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed wherein the reasons for the delay have been mentioned which include the sickness of the assessee as well as sudden demise of his son in September, 2021. Considering the above reasons of delay, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.13,98,782/- on account of increase in opening capital and further a sum of Rs.5,78,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account.
I.T.A. No.: 215/PAT/2024 Satish Kumar, AY : 2017-18 4. At the outset, the ld. DR has brought to my attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) which revealed that the same is an ex parte order. Even the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated any of the issues on merit. He has simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution.
As explained in the application for condonation of delay, the son of the assessee had passed away which in my view in itself explains the non- representation of the case before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. Matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issues afresh after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court. Sd/- [Sanjay Garg] Judicial Member Dated: 12.02.2025 J.Dey (Sr. P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. 1. Appellant : Shri Satish Kumar 2. Respondent : ITO, Ward-6(2), Patna 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Patna Bench, Patna.
6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Patna Benches Page 2 of 2