Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal which was delayed by 6 days due to non-receipt of the order from CIT(Appeals). The assessee withdrew Rs. 20,50,000 from a savings account for a family member's marriage, but due to demonetization, it was deposited in a Post Office account. The AO treated this as unexplained money under section 69A and added it to the total income.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 6 days as it was not due to negligence and the assessee had sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned? Whether the CIT(Appeals) order was passed ex-parte without considering the merits of the case?
Sections Cited
143(2), 69A
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 Yuwaraj Kundan,………….…..…..……..……Appellant Mission Road, Pakri Nawada Ara, Bhojpur, Bihar-802301 [PAN: BHGPK6469M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………...Respondent Ward-1(4), Ara Appearances by: Shri Sadashiv Tiwari, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: December 05, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order: January 31, 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 6th November, 2023 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The appeal is time barred by 06 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition saying that the assessee is not aware of the order passed by the ld. 1 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Yuwaraj Kundan CIT(Appeals) and he has not received the physical copy of the order. When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 06 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he 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 and the assessee has established sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,29,441/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued on 24th September, 2018 and served on the assessee. In response to notice, the ld. Representative of the assessee appeared and represented the case. From the record it is seen that an amount of Rs.20,50,000/- was withdrawn from the saving account in cash for the purpose of marriage of family member but due to demonetization period the amount could not be utilized and had to be deposited in Post Office savings account on different dates. On verification, it was reported that no such account was being maintained at Post Office by the assessee. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Office treated the said amount of Rs.20,50,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A and added the same to the
The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate his 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 on 6th November, 2023.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
At the time of hearing, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that ld. CIT(Appeals) did not consider the case on merit, rather he 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 assessing the taxable income at Rs.20,50,000/-. 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
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 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 based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/01/2025.