Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in the retail business of home appliances, filed a return of income for AY 2017-18. The case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition under section 68 of the Act as the assessee did not respond to notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable and sufficient cause, and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the AO for reconsideration of the issues on merits, directing the assessee to provide necessary details and cooperate with the proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, and if the appeal should be remitted back to the AO for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
68, 69A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 14.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
The assessee is an individual and engaged in the retail business of purchase and sale of home appliances under the proprietorship named J & J Trades. The assessee filed the return of income for A.Y 2017-18 on 02.11.2017 admitting a total income of Rs. 53,14,700/-. The case was Benitkaran Balasingh :- 2 -:
selected for scrutiny to verify the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period. The A.O issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why the difference between the opening cash balance as of 08.11.2016 and the cash deposit made during demonetization period to the tune of Rs.1,49,28,811/- should not be treated unexplained u/s. 69A of the Act. Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued, the A.O completed the assessment by making an addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). However, the assessee did not respond to the notice issued by the CIT(A) also and therefore, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).
There is a delay of 196 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that: “3. I state and submit that it is submitted that I was completely unaware about the appellate proceedings as this is the first faceless appeal proceedings in my case and I did not know that the notices would be sent through email and income tax portal.
4. I state and submit that further during the period I was suffering from serious heart blockage and as a result of the same, a pacemaker was implanted in my heart. My doctor advised bed rest and strictly advised me not to take up any stressful activities as the same would affect the heart. This also resulted in further delay in filing the appeal.
5. I state and submit that an appeal against the impugned orderu/s.250 of the Act dated 14.02.2024ought to have been filed on or before 14.04.2024; but the same is being filed with a delay.
I state and submit that the delay in filing the appeals are due to the aforesaid circumstanceswhich are neither wilful nor wanton but due to circumstances beyond my control. I would be put to grave loss and hardship if the delay is not condoned. A meritorious case would be lost, if the delay is not condoned. No prejudice will be caused to the Respondent herein by condoning the delay and the balance of convenience thus lies in my favour.”
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 in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances as enumerated herein above which is unique to the assessee's case we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent the case properly in the interest of justice and fair-play. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the A.O for consideration of the impugned issues on merits by calling for required details to decide the case in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file necessary details and co-operate with assessment proceeding without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.
6. Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) in the appeal since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the CIT(A).
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 04th day of February, 2026 at Chennai.