DHARMAN SIVAKUMAR,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DHARMAPURI

The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs.1,62,10,334/-. The AO initiated the assessment proceedings and passed an order under section 148A(d) stating that since the assessee did not file any details explaining the source for the above transactions it is a fit case for reopening under section 147. The AO issued a notice under section 148 requiring the assessee to furnish relevant details. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,68,000/-. The assessee submitted that the deposits and withdrawals in his bank account are done by his employer M/s.PKP Spintex Mills Pvt. Ltd. and that the funds do not belong to the assessee. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and added the entire cash deposit as short term capital gain in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A) the appeal was decided ex-parte confirming the addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

There is a delay of the 01 day in filing the appeal before the tribunal and the assessee filed the petition seeking condonation of delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not an educated person and does not have any technical knowledge to access computers. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee therefore is completely dependent on counsel with regard to income tax matters who did not handle assessee's case properly. The Ld. AR accordingly, prayed that the assessee be given one more opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances unique to the assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to present the case properly before the lower authorities. We therefore remit the appeal back to the AO with a direction to consider the impugned issue afresh on merits by calling for required details to decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file necessary documents in support of the impugned additions made by the AO and cooperate with assessment proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.

Since, we have remitted the appeal back to the AO for fresh consideration the stay petition filed by the assessee has becomes infructuous.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous.