Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 SANJAY, VS. ITO, WARD-2, H.NO. 166, V&PO BIR ZILA PARISHAD BLDG., BARKATABAD, ROHTAK, HARYANA-124001 BAHADURGARH, HARYANA-124507 (PAN: DARPS0546B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2025 ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds:- “
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in confirming the addition despite the fact that learned AO has passed the order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee by violating the principle of natural justice.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order passed by the Id.AO despite the fact that no service of notice was made by the Ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. The appellant prays that the delay be condoned and appeal should be taken up for hearing.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eyes of law and are vague. (i) That the CIT(A) has erred in analyzing the fact that there is no live nexus between the reasons recorded and the belief formed by the Assessing Officer.
7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in completely ignoring the fact that that land in question is a rural agricultural land and fall under the ambit of non- capital asset as defined under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. 8. (i)On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law by treating the cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account of Rs.28,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act despite the fact that the same has been sourced from the sale of agricultural land which is exempt by virtue of section 2(14) of the Act.
2 | P a g e (ii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in confirming the addition of Rs.28,50,000/- without seeking any further clarification and explanation. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, arend or alter any of the grounds of appeal
.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assesseee deposited cash of Rs. 28,50,000/- in his bank account maintained with Corporation Bank, Rohtak during the AY 2012-13. Since the assessee failed to file the return of income u/s. 139(1), the assessee was required vide letter dated 8.2.2019 to explain the source of cash deposited, but the same remained uncomplied with. Therefore, proceedings u/s. 147 were initiated and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 28.3.2019 after recording the reasons and obtaining necessary approval from PCIT, Rohtak. Subsequently, several statutory notices were issued to the assessee from time to time and the assessee was required to file his return, but the assessee did not respond. Therefore, AO noted that since the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposits, he framed the assessment at Rs. 28,50,000/- and passed the exparte assessment order u/s. 144/147 of the Act on 06.12.2019. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that there is a delay of 1086 days in filing the appeal, which he did not condone and dismissed the appeal on account of limitation.
3. Against the aforesaid order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice for hearing. Hence, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.
I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, I note that AO has passed the exparte order in this case and in appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of limitation. I find that the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) were that the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) were faceless and notices were sent through electronic medium and the assessee is not much technically savvy and the emails used for e-filing activities in the profile sections were never accessed by him. It was the further contention for delay that the recipient of the email never forwarded the same to the assessee and the email account was sparingly accessed by him. I further note that ld. CIT(A) in his order vide para no. 5.5 has observed that the assessee has not submitted any document regarding delay in filing of appeal in response to notice issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A), however, in the starting of para 5.5 Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the reasons for delay in filing of appeal given in Column no. 15 (by way of separate attachment) of Form no. 35 has been mentioned from which the Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, even without deciding the same on merits of the case. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, in my considered opinion, reasonable cause has been attributed for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which 4 | P a g e deserve to be condoned in the interest of justice. I further find that Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issues in dispute on merits of the case and dismissed the appeal on account of limitation. Hence, I condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the issues in dispute afresh, and pass a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection.