Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was time-barred by 446 days. The assessee claimed that the delay was due to non-service of the order by post and personal health issues, leading to an inability to consult with the tax consultant and advocate. The assessee deposited a large sum of cash during the demonetization period which could not be explained.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 446 days, accepting the assessee's plea of sufficient cause. The Tribunal inclined to set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to sufficient cause? Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A)?
Sections Cited
270A, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ) RL REDDY(KZ) & RAJESH KUMAR & RAJESH KUMAR & RAJESH KUMAR
Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manjulata Barik Vs. ITO, Ward Bhadrak, Bhadrak ITO, Ward Bhadrak, Bhadrak Patharadi , Charampa, Bhadrak arampa, Bhadrak 756101 PAN/GIR No. AYZPB AYZPB 3308 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.R.Panda, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30 /06/202 /2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30 06//202 /2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 11/09/2023 INN Appeal Appeal No. No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/105593926(1) passed for Assessment Year Assessment Year 2017-18.
The appeal is time barred by The appeal is time barred by 446 days in filing the appeal by the days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed condonation petition condonation petition
P a g e 1 | 5 dated 18.4.2025 supported by affidavit, dated 23rd April, 2025 stating that the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been served on the appellant through post and due to health problems, the assessee was frequently under treatment and not able to consult the advocate about the first appellate proceeding. It is stated that the email and mobile number of her tax consultant were registered with I.T.Department, hence, the assessee was under bona fide belief that her tax consultant was taking proper care of her tax matters but the counsel did not take any step to file response, which resulted the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. When the assessee came to know about the penalty order u/s.270A of the Act, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to above fact that there was a delay of 446 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 446 days and admit the appeal for hearing.
Brief facts of the case are that the during the year under consideration, the assessee has deposited huge cash in the account in oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhadrak, which includes cash deposit of Rs.15,16,000/- during demonetisation period i.e. 9th Nov to 30th December,
P a g e 2 | 5 2016. As the assesse was unable to explain the source of cash deposit, the Assessing officer completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act determining the total income at Rs.14,34,640/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted back to the file of ld. AO for deciding it afresh.
At the outset, ld. D.R. invited to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s.144 of the Act assessing the taxable income at Rs.14,34,638/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written
P a g e 3 | 5 submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate its claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) failing which the Ld. CIT(A) 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.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30 06//2025.