Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturalist, deposited Rs. 10,24,000 in a bank account for A.Y. 2017-18, not having filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 7,74,000 as unexplained money under Section 69A, rejecting the assessee's explanation of agricultural income, milk sales, and gifts, allowing only Rs. 2,50,000 as explained. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.
Held
The tribunal condoned a 15-day delay in filing the appeal, finding it not deliberate. It noted that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notice. To ensure justice, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that the assessee be given a due opportunity to present evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned; Whether the addition under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits was justified; Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper notice.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 69A, 115BBE, 234A, 234B, 234C, 271AAC, 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA NO. 303/RJT/2024 (�नधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dilipsinh Gambhirsinh Vs. Income Tax Officer, ward -2(1)(1), Jadeja Income Tax Office, Rajkot – 360001 64-Kanakpur, Khokhari Tal, Paddhri, Rajkot - 360001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ATJPJ6274D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM:
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), dated 23.02.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s 144of the Act, on 27.06.2019.
The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1.0 The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2.0 The order of the Id. AO in so far as he assessed the total income at Rs.7,74,000/- is totally bad on facts as also in law.
(AY 2017-18) DILIPSINH G. JADEJA v. ITO
3.0 The order passed by the learned AO u/s. 144 of the Act is totally invalid in law, which deserves to be quashed and may kindly be quashed. 4.0 The Ld. AO grievously erred on facts as also in law in making addition of Rs. 7,74,000/- u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained money on the alleged ground that the appellant failed to explain source of cash deposits alongwith necessary evidences. The addition made is totally unjustified on facts as also in law. deserves to be deleted and may kindly be deleted. 5.0 The learned AO erred in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234Band 234Cof the Act. 6.0 The learned AO erred in initiating penalty u/s. 271AAC and 272A(1)(d) of the Act.”
At the outset, this appeal is time barred by 15 days by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. has filed an Affidavit and requested for condoning delay the same are reproduced as under: - “1. Your honour may kindly appreciate that hon. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi has passed order on 23.02.2024, which was served on 23.02.2024 and appeal before hon. ITAT was filed on 08.05.2024, hence there was delay of 15 days. 2. Your honour may kindly appreciate that appellant is unaware of passing of order by Ld. CIT(A), which was served online. When appellant comes to know about dismissal of appeal by LD, CIT(A), immediately she has approached Chartered Accountant for filing of appeal.”
We have heard both the parties. We find that the minor delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee is neither deliberate nor, due to any negligence on the part of the appellant, the minor delay caused due to genuine and bona fide reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. We find that there is sufficient reason to condone the delay and, therefore, we condone the delay of 153 days and admit the assessee’s appeal for hearing on merits.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed a return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. The present case were initiated for the reopen (AY 2017-18) DILIPSINH G. JADEJA v. ITO that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 10,24,000/- in Rajkot Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd., during the relevant to A.Y. 2017- 18. Notice was duly issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited Rs. 8,63,000/- in Rajkot Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd. and Rs. 1,61,000/- in Rajkot Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd. and the total cash deposited of Rs. 10,24,000/- during the year under consideration. The assessee has submitted as under; “Sir, I am an agriculturalist and having income from agricultural activities. Further, I have also engaged in the business of animal warden and earn income from sale of milk. From this business I have earn Rs. 2.5 lakh to 3 lakh from the cultivated agricultural land and approx Rs.2 lakh earn from milk sales. I have no any taxable income so I have not file my return of income. Further I have earn gift from my brothers amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- 1.e. 1.5 lakh from Hardevsinh G Jadeja and Rs.1.5 lakh from Sukhdevsinh G Jadeja. The cash deposits was made from my and my wife's personal saving and amount received on account of gift from the two brothers."
4. The submission made by the assessee is duly considered, however the same is not totally acceptable. Since the assessee obtained loan from the bank even he and his wife having cash on hand amounting to Rs. 3,75,000/- is not believable. Therefore Rs. 2,50,000/- is found reasonable. Further, loan obtain from the bank amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- and gift received from the brothers amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- are not found reasonable. Considering this fact, I made addition of Rs. 7,74,000/-(l.e. 10,24,000/- (-) 2,50,000) U/s.69A of the 1.T. Act.”
The assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal order dated 23.02.2022 of the assessee with the following observations: -
“6.3 In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the appellant to prove that the facts and the findings of the AO are incorrect. As stated above no documentary evidence has been filed by the appellant during the appellate proceedings to disprove the finding of the AO. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no infirmity is noticed in the order of the AO. Thus I find no merit in the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant and accordingly the same are rejected/dismissed.
(AY 2017-18) DILIPSINH G. JADEJA v. ITO
In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. ”
7. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) order dated 23.02.2024.
The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the income of the assessee is below taxable limit, hence no return was filed. Total credit in books of accounts Rs. 10,24,000/-. During the course of argument it is prayed that the case may kindly be remanded back for proper verification. The prayer of the A.R. on behalf of the assessee for an opportunity to be provided for proper adjudication of the case.
On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue has relied on the order of the Lower Authorities.
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is noted that notice issued by the Ld.CIT(A) hearing of the case, but the order is silent on the service of notice upon the assessee. Besides this, the Ld.CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal of the assessee ex- parte. The Ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the appeal on merit. In the interest of justice, and considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to present his case before Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the (AY 2017-18) DILIPSINH G. JADEJA v. ITO assessee. We direct the assessee to submit relevant details/ documents/ evidence.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is, allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30 -06-2025