Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a banana commission agent, had cash deposits of Rs. 2,43,99,000/- treated as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, following reopening under Section 147. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 187 days, which the CIT(A) dismissed as time-barred without condoning the delay or adjudicating on the merits of the case.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 187-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding it not deliberate and noting that the assessee gained nothing from the delay. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had not previously considered the substantive issues.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal as time-barred without condoning the delay and adjudicating the case on merits regarding the addition of unexplained cash deposits.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 142(1), 68, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 19.11.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 12.05.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. With the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and available records, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal exparte qua the assessee.
We have heard the ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of banana commission agent. Income of Rs.2,21,450/- declared in the return filed for the A.Y. 2017- 18. Based on the information available in the AIMS Module that assessee made cash deposits of Rs.2,43,99,000/- and withdrawals of Rs.1,99,17,241/- in the current accounts held with State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, case reopened u/s.147 of the Act. In response to notice u/s.142(1) the assessee made submission. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the said submission and held that assessee failed to submit documents/evidences in his support to substantiate the huge cash deposits in his bank accounts. Ld. AO thus treated the amount of cash deposit at Rs.2,43,99,000/- as unexplained income u/s.68 of the Act. Thereafter, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with a delay of 187 days. Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation. Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal assailing the impugned order.
On perusal of the impugned order, we observe that assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay of 187 days. Precisely, the main reasons for delay stated to be that assessee is dependent on the Income Tax Practitioner and he could not present his case before the Assessing Officer which resulted in huge demand. Failure on the part of Counsel should not be detrimental to the assessee. However, ld.CIT(A) eventhough extracted the entire affidavit in the impugned order did not condone the delay placing reliance on certain decisions and held that there exists no sufficient and good reason for the delay of 187 days. Ultimately, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) as barred by limitation and there is no discussion on merits of the case.
We on perusal of the averments made by the assessee in the affidavit as well as the statement of facts filed before us find that delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) is not deliberate and assessee has not gained anything by filing the appeal with delay. We therefore adopting justice oriented approach and placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 187 days in filing of the instant appeal before ld.CIT(A) and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Since ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits of the case as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the case, we on considering the facts and circumstances deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceeding shall provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee as decide the issues on merit as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A) and should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 18th day of February, 2026.