Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a housewife, faced reassessment proceedings where the AO made an addition of Rs. 58,04,091/- for unexplained time deposits under Section 69A via a best judgment assessment. The CIT(A) dismissed the subsequent appeal due to a delay in filing, which the assessee attributed to the deposits being old, renewed investments.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), acknowledging the assessee's unfamiliarity with e-proceedings. It restored the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing that all additional evidence be considered and a proper opportunity of hearing be granted to the assessee.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in appeal filing; validity and jurisdictional aspects of reassessment under sections 147/148 including compliance with e-assessment schemes and procedural requirements like draft assessment orders; and the merits of additions for unexplained time deposits under Section 69A.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 147, Section 144, Section 148, Section 149, Section 148A(b), Section 148A(d), Section 251(1)(a), Section 144B, Section 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD
Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Vishwajit Shinde, JCIT Date of hearing : 21.01.2026 Date of : 30.01.2026 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 30.09.2025 framed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2015-16 which is arising out of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 04.03.2024.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1) THE LD. AO AND THE HON. CIT(A) HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND REJECTED THE APPEAL AT LIMINE (AT THE THRESHOLD) BY REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE HIM.
2) THE HON, CIT (A) DISMISSED THE CASE AFTER ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S 250 FOR MAKING SUBMISSIONS ON THE MERITS, HENCE THE MERITS OF THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED WHICH WERE ALREADY PLEADED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND STATEMENT OF FACTS. 3) THE HON, CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED U/S 250, AND FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THE MERITS OF THE CASE 4) THE LD. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER (JAO, Ward 13(1), PUNE) ERRED IN ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 13.04.2022 BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED IN SECTION 149. ALSO THE LD. AO FAILED TO ISSUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL OF THE HON. PCCIT, PUNE. 5) THE LD. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER (JAO, WARD 13(1), PUNE) HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148A(b) DATED 31.03.2022 AND ORDER U/S 148A(d) DATED 13.04.2022, WHICH IS NOT VALID AFTER INTRODUCTION OF THE 'E-ASSESSMENT OF INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT SCHEME, 2022 BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WITH EFFECT FROM 29.03.2022. 6) THE LD. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER (JAO, Ward 13(1), PUNE) HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 13.04.2022 WHICH IS NOT VALID AFTER INTRODUCTION OF THE 'E-ASSESSMENT OF INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT SCHEME, 2022 BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WITH EFFECT FROM 29.03.2022, AND THE HON. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 7) HON. CIT(A) FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251(1)(a) BY NOT SETTING ASIDE THE CASE TO THE LD. AO AS PER THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE HIM. 8) THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT ISSUING THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS A MANDATORY PROCEDURE REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED UNDER SECTION 144B, AND THE HON. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 9) THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY MADE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.54,57,000/- U/S. 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BEING TIME DEPOSIT MADE AND THE HON. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 10) THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY MADE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.3,47,091/- U/S. 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BEING THE INTEREST EARNED ON DEPOSITS AND THE HON. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 11) THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED THE FORM 26AS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE HON CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 12) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, DELETE, AMEND, ALTER. VARY AND/OR WITHDRAW ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL.
The assessee has raised as many as eleven grounds of appeal is revolving around the addition for unexplained money at Rs. 58,04,091/- in the best judgement assessment framed by Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2015-16.
4. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances assessee failed to appear before both the lower authorities. He further submitted that the impugned addition deserves to be deleted because the alleged investment referred by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment order are basically old investments in FDR which assessee has renewed on year to year basis and the balance have been brought forward from preceding years. He therefore prayed that the additional evidence which were filed before Ld. CIT(A) may please be admitted and the issue raised in the instant appeal on merits may please be restored to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for afresh adjudication.
5. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. Assessing Officer (AO).
6. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. The assessee is a housewife and not carrying out any business activity during the year. Based on the investment made in time deposits with Banking Company of Rs. 54,57,000/-, Ld. AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and carried out the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. However due to non appearance of the assessee on the given dates of hearing Ld. AO passed the best judgement assessment and made the addition for unexplained money of Rs. 58,04,091/- and assessed the income at the same amount. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However due to delay in filing the appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. Before me Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit providing the reasons due to which there was a delay in filing the appeal before Ld.
CIT(A). Considering the same and also observing that as the assessee is non conversant with the income tax Portal and E-proceedings, the delay has arisen in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Taking a justice oriented approach and placing reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) (Supreme Court) and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) I hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
So far as merits of the case are concerned, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has made reference to the Paper Book running into 163 pages stating that the time deposit referred by Ld. AO were majorly made in the preceding years and they have been renewed on time to time basis and therefore the alleged investment is not related to the impugned year. Specific reference was made to Paper Book page 91-113 regarding the FDR statement issued by Bank of Maharashtra. Under these given facts and circumstances I deem it appropriate that the issue on merits deserves to be restored to the file of Ld. JAO for carrying out denovo assessment proceedings after due consideration of the additional evidence placed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal and after due verification shall decide in accordance with law. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Further assessee is required to update her latest e-mail id and mobile No. on the website and also remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 30th day of January, 2026.