Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee deposited Rs. 54,51,000/- cash in a bank account, flagged by AIR information. Despite multiple notices, the assessee did not comply, leading the AO to add the amount as unexplained income under sections 69 r.w.s. 68. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as time-barred, also rejecting the condonation of delay application, and upheld the AO's order.
Held
The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal as time-barred and without condoning the delay. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing the AO to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Key issues include the validity of reopening assessment based on AIR information and cash deposits, alleged non-service of notice, and the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal as time-barred and rejection of condonation of delay.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 148, 142(1), 69, 68, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SH. SUDHIR KUMAR
Appellant by Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, Advocate Sh. Aniket Sharma, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 18/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 ORDER
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:
1. This appeal by the assesseeis directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated24.01.2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11 pertaining to arises out of the assessment order dated18.12.2017under section 144/147 of the IT Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’].
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-
1. That the order is bad in law and facts of the Case.
2. APPEAL is filed well in time as prescribed under the Act.
3. Order of confirming the reopening of assessment is bad I view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Order of confirming the reopening of assessment is bad is in the basis of cash deposit is bad.
5. Order of confirming the reopening of assessment on the basis of AIR Information is bad in law.
6. No notice U/s sec. 148 of the act served on the assessee.
7. Assessee reserve right to the file detailed/more grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of AIR information has been received that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.54,51,000/- in his bank account with Punjab National Bank, Ghaziabad during F.Y. 2009-10 relevant toA.Y.2010-11. In compliance to the verification letter issued. No reply was received from the assessee. Notice u/s. 148 was issued and served upon the assessee. Nobody attended the proceedings. Notice u/s. 142 (1) alongwith questionnaire was issued to the assessee, but no compliance was made. Show cause notice u/s. 144/147 of the Act was issued to the assessee fixing date of hearing but nobody attended appear on behalf of the assessee failing which the AO has made the addition of cash deposit of Rs 54,51,000/- as unexplained income u/s 69 r.w.s.68 and penalty proceedings was also initiated u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee has filed appeal before the CIT(A) who vide his order dated 24-01-2023 dismissed the appeal as time barred against which the assessee is in appeal before us. The CIT(A) has observed as under :-
“In pursuant to the notice issued dated 24/08/2022 the assessee didn't comply with till date. Meaning thereby, assessee did not have anything to furnish substantiate its contentions. Merely stating "All Cash Deposited out of the cash Withdrawal or money given to other was taken back in Cash and deposited in the Bank" and not providing any documentary evidences in support of his contention will not serve the purpose of the assessee. Hence, I find that assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act is a valid order and ample opportunities of being heard have also been accorded to the assessee. Keeping in mind these facts and circumstances of the case and in absence of any documentary evidences in support of the assessee's contention, I do not find any reason for further intervention in the assessment order so passed; therefore order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act is hereby sustained.
Assesee’s appeal fails Gr. 1. [2] To sum up asessee’s appeal is dismissed.”
The Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice and order were not served on the correct address of the assessee. He has further submitted that the application for condonation of delay should be allowed and appeal should have been heard on merit. He has also submitted that the assessee has filed the condonation application to condone the delay but the application was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee relying upon the following judicial decisions :-
Neelkanth Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2. GKN Driveshoft India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 3. Hameede Begum Vs. ITO
The Ld. DR fairly conceded to this.
We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the authorities below and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. Perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) reveals that the appeal was not admitted for adjudication being treated time barred and condonation application was rejected. The assessee has not attended the proceedings before the AO and his appeal was also dismissed without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld counsel for assessee has stated that assessee wants to take part in the proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we restore the issue to the file of the AO and AO is directed to decide the matter afresh after giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is liable to be allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.11.2024.