BHARAT HANCHINALE,CHIKODI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPPANI
Facts
The assessee filed an income tax return for AY 2020-21 disclosing Rs. 1,25,860/-, but the AO found substantial bank credits and cash deposits totalling Rs. 20,61,566/- and Rs. 43,200/- respectively, exceeding the declared income. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings, made an addition of Rs. 7,64,055/- under Section 69A for unexplained credits, and assessed the total income at Rs. 8,89,915/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a 29-day delay in filing, stating that no sufficient reasons for the delay were provided.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay, but no application for condonation of delay under Section 249(3) was filed by the assessee before the CIT(A). Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity for the assessee to file a condonation of delay application and then adjudicate the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay in filing without proper consideration of condonation of delay, and whether the matter should be remitted back for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 142(1), 69A, 147, 144, 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH PANAJI
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos. 219/PAN/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) Bharat Hanchinale, Vs National Faceless 1081,Hanabar Galli, Assessment Centre, . Khadaklat, chikodi, New Delhi-110003. Belgaum-591228. Karnataka. PAN/GIR No. AOJPH8149C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)
Assessee by None(Letter dt13-09-2025) Revenue by Shri.Ish Gupta.Sr.DR
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 16.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 17.09.2025 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / (CIT(A) passed u/sec 250 of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse is engaged in the business and has filed the return of income for A.Y.2020-21 disclosing a total income of Rs.1,25,860/-.The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data, NMS found that in the F.Y.2019-2020 the assesses has substantial credits in the bank accounts aggregating to Rs.20,61,566/- as against
2 ITA. No.219/PAN/2025 Bharat Hanchinale. the income offered in the return of income filed. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and there was no proper compliance to the notice. Further the A.O has issued notice u/sec 142(1) of the Act calling for details in respect of claims and the information supporting the return of income filed. 3. The assesse has filed the details/ information and the Assessing Officer (A.O) has dealt on the submissions/details and find that there are substantial credits in the bank account aggregating to Rs.20,61,566/- and cash deposits of Rs.43,200/-.Further in response to show cause notice, the assesse has filed the reconciliation and explanations. Whereas the A.O. has dealt on the submissions and was not satisfied with the explanations and also dealt on the provisions of section 69A of the Act and made addition of unexplained credits of Rs.7,64,055/- and assessed the total income of Rs.8,89,915/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s144 of the Act dated 23.01.2025. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas the CIT(A) find that there is a delay of 29 days in filling the appeal and the assessee has not filed/ explained the sufficient reasons/cause for the delay and the CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
3 ITA. No.219/PAN/2025 Bharat Hanchinale. 5. Heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record and none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no proper compliance by the assesse in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the delay in filling the appeal was not explained with the reasonable cause and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition by the A.O and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the application U/sec 249(3) of the Act for condonation of delay of 29 days in filling the appeal was not filed before the CIT(A) by the assessee.
Hence considering the facts, circumstances and principles of natural justice, shall provide with one more opportunity to the assessee to file the application for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) explaining the sufficient and reasonable cause and the CIT(A) should fallow a pragmatic approach for condonation of delay and in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits after considering the application of condonation of delay. The assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information
4 ITA. No.219/PAN/2025 Bharat Hanchinale. for early disposal of appeal and the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.09.2025.
-S/d- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji Dated: 17/09/2025
Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant, 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT 6. Guard file. //True Copy//
BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar)ITAT, Panaji
5 ITA. No.219/PAN/2025 Bharat Hanchinale.
Initial Date 1. Draft dictated on PS 2. Draft placed before author PS
Draft proposed & placed before PS the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by PS Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Date on which file goes to the 8. AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 11. Dictation Pad is enclosed
