MAYANK SINGH,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-5, PATNA, PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 209/PAT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 January 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. The Tribunal considered the submissions and decided that remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication would serve substantive justice, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 288 days, citing illness (dengue) as the reason. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted. The appeal emanates from an order by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, which confirmed additions made by the AO under sections 144, 69A, and 44AD of the Income Tax Act, including cash deposits and business income. The assessee had failed to respond to notices from the AO and CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to the assessee's medical condition, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253,Section 250,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 44AD,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271AAC,Section 271A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH” PATNA

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

It is seen that there is a delay of 288 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condoning the said delay, with the following contents: “We enclose herewith an appeal u/s 253 of the I.T. Act 1961 against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 2017- 18 on the 30.01.2023. Through this appeal should have been filed on or before 01/04/2023, but could not be so filed as I was Bed ridden due to dengue and I was advised for complete bed rest. We therefore pray that delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and it should be treated as filed within the allowed time.”

1.1 The present appeal emanates from order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) dated 30.01.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] for A.Y. 2017-18.

1.2 The impugned order has been passed after the Ld. AO passed an order u/s 144 of the Act dated 10.12.2019. It is seen that the Ld. AO was constrained to pass an order u/s 144 of the Act since several notices issued for seeking details and clarifications regarding the returned income went un-responded. The Ld. AO made two additions as under:

(i) Cash deposit during the demonetization period of Rs. 1,15,34,000/-. (ii) Addition made on account of income determined u/s 44AD of the Act at Rs. 24,41,380/-.

2.

Before the Ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee could not succeed mainly on the ground that he did not respond to several notices fixing dates for hearing, leading to an exparte order.

2.1 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds: “1) For that the Grounds of Appeal hereto are without prejudice to one another. 2) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case Id. CIT (A) is not justified in not giving proper time to substantiate its claim which is violative of principal of natural justice. 3) For that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,15,34,000/-as unexplained cash credit as u/s 69A of the IT. Act, 1961. Whenever, the fact is on record that the appellant was engaged in retails business in the name of M/s Satya Enterprises and Maintained proper books of accounts. 4) For that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.24,41,380/-on account of income determined u/s 44AD. 2 5) For that the entire assessment order is bad both in law and facts of the case. 6) For that the demand made on account of interest u/s 234B, and 234C is unsustainable in law being mechanical and without the sanction of law. 7) For that the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the 1.T. Act, 1961 is arbitrary, unjustified, void, ab-initio and bad in laws. 8) For that the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the IT. Act, 1961 is arbitrary, unjustified, void, ab-initio and bad in laws.”

3.

The hearing in this case was conducted over a period of 2 days on 06.01.2025 and 08.01.2025. The ld. AR requested that due to situation beyond the control of the assessee he could not make a proper presentation before the authorities below and therefore, he pleaded for remanding the matter back to any of the authorities below for another chance. The Ld. DR was also agreeable in case the matter was to be remanded back.

3.1 We have considered the rivals submissions and also gone through the documents before us. It is felt that in the interest of substantive justice this matter deserves to be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It is expected that the assessee would avail of this opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the court on 09.01.2025

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →