Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 was filed late by 688 days. The assessee claimed unawareness of the CIT(A) order due to non-receipt of communication. The appeal was against an addition of Rs. 76,32,800/- made by the Assessing Officer for cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of unawareness. However, the Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of due care and attention in pursuing the case and non-compliance with notices.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee can be condoned, and if so, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 133(6), 142(1), 143(2), 253(5)
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, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA
आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA JM;
Captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2015- 16, is directed against order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), vide order dated 06/02/2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 26/12/2017 u/s 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Grounds of appeals raised by the assessee, are as follows:- 1. The assessment order is bad in Law.
2. Addition of Rs 7632800/- on account cash deposition into the bank account, sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justifiable as the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered facts and circumstances in totality and hence the same may please be deleted.
Brief facts of the case that the assessee has submitted return of Income on 17.09.2016 declaring the total income of Rs 2,95,000 for the year under consideration and the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. The notice was issued u/s. 143(2) on 03.07.2017. Thereafter, a detailed questionnaire was issued through notice under Section 142(1) dated 20.07.2017. The assessee has deposited Rs 7632800 in Bank of India and Rs 13,18,075/- was deposited in Axis Bank. In view of the above notice u/s. 133(6) of the IT Act were issued to both the bank. The information for the same were received by the Ld. AO and in reference to that a show cause notice was issued to the assessee dated 01.12.2017. In response to the said show cause notice, the assessee attended the hearing and explained the cash deposition into the respective Bank Accounts. On the basis of explanation given by the assessee, the Ld. AO has made addition of Rs 7632800. By order date 26.12.2017. The learned Assessing Officer has made an addition without considering the material on record submitted by the Assessee during the course of assessment proceeding in response to the show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, being aggrieved by the above additions, has filed this appeal.
That the assessee filed an appealagainst the order of assessment before Ld. CIT(A). That said appeal was disposed of by Ld. CIT(A) with following observation. "Under these circumstances, in my considered opinion, appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such I hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon following case laws: CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del)1. Estate of Late TukojiraoHokar vs. CWT 223 ITR 840 (M.P.)2. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H)3. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and Another 118 ITR 461 (SC). Page | 2
Therefore, considering the above factual and legal position, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed for non-prosecution. As a result, the assessment by the AO is confirmed."
That the assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal.
At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 688 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The crux of the application for delay is as under; “The said order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed without consideration of our written submission furnished during the course of Assessment Proceedings. Though, the said order was passed as 06.02.2023. I was unaware about the same as the same was not sent to me via post or via E-mail I do not access IT Portal Online on daily basis. I received a message from the IT Department for DTSVS Scheme, which forwarded to my AR and then the AR accessed the IT Portal as on 10.02.2025 and came to know that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the Appellate Order and the said date De 10.02.2025, of visiting the IT Portal by my AR may please be considered as date of delivery/service of Order. Hence, the passing of the said order came into my knowledge at present i.e. after the span of 2 years.
3. Being aggrieved by this we preferred an appeal as on 23.02.2025, which is delayed by 688 days due to the reason of being unaware of the said order being passed by the Ld. CIT(A).”
During the course of argument, the Ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that the assessee was unaware about the proceedings, therefore, the assessee could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AR. The Ld. AR of the assessee prayed for an opportunity to explain the case before the Lower Authority.
On the contrary, the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr.p DR stated that the assessee is negligent on the contest his case, the cost kindly to be imposed.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We noted that the two notices have been issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearings of the case. Since, the appellant did not submitted the relevant documents before the Ld. CIT(A). We further observed that the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the I. T. Act by the Ld. AO. We note that the assessee has not made the compliance with the notices for hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A). We note that the assessee has not gave due care and attention to the case and negligent in pursuing the case and the assessee has also a non-cooperative attitude in pursuing the case for A.Y. 2015-16. We direct the assessee to deposit cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minster Relief fund (Government of India), the receipt is to be submitted with the Registrar of this Tribunal. Thus, taken into account, the provision of section 253(5), we take judicious view and condoned the delay in filing of the appeal. Keeping in view, in the interest of justice, that due opportunity given to the assessee to produced/submit the relevant documents before the Lower Authority. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits.
In result the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04/ 07/2025.