AJAY KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO - 48(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3543/DEL/2024Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 December 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, noting the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and lack of examination of assessee's details, set aside the order. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the assessee and proper examination of documents in line with natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order which confirmed an addition of Rs. 85,34,373/- as unexplained cash under Section 69A. The appeal to the ITAT was filed with a 68-day delay, for which a condonation petition was submitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and if the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits and examining the assessee's submissions regarding unexplained cash under Section 69A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN,

For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Nayyar, Dr. DR
Hearing: 10.12.2024Pronounced: 10.12.2024

This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, New Delhi, in appeal no. CIT(A), Delhi-16/10006/2019-20 vide order dated 28.03.2024.

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is barred by limitation by 68 days. The order of the CIT(A) dated 28.03.2024,

ITA No.- 3543/Del/2024 Ajay Kumar Jain and the date of communication or service of order is 28.03.2024, whereas appeal was filed by the assessee on 03.08.2024. The appeal should have been filed on or before 27.05.2024, whereas it was filed on 03.08.2024, thereby there is a delay of 68 days. The assessee has filed the condonation petition, and the same is not opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. Hence, after going through the contentions, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3.

None is present from assessee’s side, but going through the grounds of appeal and the order of CIT(A), it is noticed that order of CIT(A) is ex-parte and the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:

“6. that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and fact by dismissing the order ex-parte even though a compliance was made before him on the income tax portal.”

4.

We noticed that the issue is regarding the reopening of assessment as well as the addition of unexplained cash of Rs. 85,34,373/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money. We noted from the order of CIT(A), that it is ex- parte qua assessee, but even on merits, he has not adjudicated the Page 2 of 4

ITA No.- 3543/Del/2024 Ajay Kumar Jain issue with a speaking order. We noted that the CIT(A) admitted the fact that the assessee had filed some details, which were never examined nor discussed in the order, in regard to cash deposit of Rs. 85,34,373/-. In the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that a reasonable opportunity should be provided to the assessee to explain its case and CIT(A) should also examine the documents filed by the assessee. Hence, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication. For this proportion, the Ld. Sr. Dr has no objection.

The matter is remanded back to the CIT(A), hence this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10.12.2024

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →