Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals for AY 2016-17 and AY 2013-14, where an addition of Rs.1,70,00,000/- was made as unexplained money or investment, potentially on a protective basis across both years. For AY 2016-17, the appeal was delayed by 162 days due to the CA's illness, but the delay was condoned. The assessee contested the additions, claiming the actual investment pertains to AY 2013-14 and sought fresh verification of the source by the AO.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matters back to the AO for both assessment years. For AY 2016-17, the AO was directed to provide the assessee another opportunity to be heard, and for AY 2013-14, to properly examine the source of investment and determine the correct assessment year for taxation. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the quantum proceedings.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; validity of unexplained investment addition of Rs.1,70,00,000/- across multiple assessment years; determination of the correct assessment year for taxation; validity of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Sections Cited
Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ) & RAJESH KUMAR
Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jince Kurian Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Bishop House, C/O Associate Infra Developers Private Limited Ainthhapali, 768004 PAN/GIR No. BVPPK 7918 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K Miishra, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01 /07/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The present appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 21/06/2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Sambalpur/10137/2018-19 passed for Assessment Year 2016-17, order dated
P a g e 1 | 5
Jince Kurian 29.1.2025 in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10181781 Assessment Year 2013-14 and in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10188869 for Assessment Year 2013-14.
The appeal filed for the assessment year 2016-17 in is delayed by 162 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit stating that as the Chartered Accountant, dealing with the matter was seriously ill suffering from neurological problem and under treatment from 18.6.2024 and only when he get partial relief, contacted the counsel to file the appeal, which has resulted in delay of 162 days. It was the submission that the delay cause in filing the appeal is bonafide and there is no evil intention of the assessee. It was prayed that the delay be condoned. Ld Sr DR opposed the condonation of delay.
After hearing the parties and perusing the condonation petition, we are satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within time and, therefore, we condone the delay of 162 days and admit the appeal for hearing.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has given four opportunities as is evident from the order at page 3 but the assessee failed to response to the notices. In view of absolute non-representation, the ld CIT(A) had no other option but to confirm the addition made by the AO. Before us, ld AR prayed for one more opportunity to represent the case before the ld AO as the assessment has been made u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld.
P a g e 2 | 5
Jince Kurian CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld AO, failing which the ld AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
At the outset, ld AR submitted that for the assessment year 2016-17, the addition of Rs.1,70,00,000/- has been treated as unexplained money and the said addition has been restored to the file of the ld AO for fresh consideration. He submitted that for the assessment year 2013-14 also, same addition ie. Rs.1,70,00,000/- has made under section 69A of the Act. It was his prayer that the particular transaction of Rs.1,70,00,000/- has been added for both the assessment years under protective and substantive basis. It was the submission that the actual investment relates to assessment year 2013-14 and not for assessment year 2016- 17. It was his submission that assessee has substantial evidence to justice the source of investment made in the year 2013-14. He submitted that since for both the assessment years i.e. 2016-17 and 2013-14, same addition has been made, it needs to be deleted from the assessment year 2016-17. Further, the source of investment for A.Y. 2013-14 needs to be verified by the AO. Therefore, he prayed
P a g e 3 | 5
Jince Kurian for one more opportunity before the AO so that evidences submitted before the Tribunal in the form of paper, which was not before the AO, can be examined by the AO and it can be decided for which year this transaction relates to and can be assessed.
We have heard the rival submissions. It is submitted by ld AR that the addition of Rs.1,70,00,000/- has been made in both the years i.e. 2016-17 & 2013- 14. It is the AO to decide the transaction of Rs.1,70,00,000/- relates to which year, as it cannot be taxed in both the assessment years. Further, we observe that for both the years, assessments were completed u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. Further, for A.Y. 2013-14, addition has been made on protective basis, which is not correct also. The source of receipt has not been properly examined by the AO. As the addition made in A.Y. 2016-17 is restored to the file of the ld AO for fresh consideration, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also restored to the file of the AO to examine the source of investment. As per the submission of ld AR of the assessee, the investment relates to A.Y. 2013-14. If so, then the assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 needs to be dropped and the source for investment i.e. 2013-14 needs to be examined afresh by the AO by affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the issue is restored to the file of the AO.
ITA No.129/CTK/2025: A.Y. 2013-14. P a g e 4 | 5 Jince Kurian
As the issue involved in quantum addition, which was the basis for levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) has been restored to the file of the ld AO, the issue of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is also restored to the file of the ld AO to be decided afresh after passing the quantum order.
In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 01/07/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Cuttack: Dated 01/07/2025 B.K.Parida, Sr. PS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Jince Kurian Bishop House, C/O Associate Infra Developers Private Limited Ainthhapali, 768004 2. The Respondent : ITO, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur 3. The CIT(A)-, 4. Pr.CIT- 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Assistant Registrar, Itat, Cuttack
P a g e 5 | 5