Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an ITR for AY 2017-18, disclosing an income of Rs. 6,91,070/-, but the case was selected for scrutiny due to large cash deposits during demonetization and abnormal sales with decreased profitability. The AO made additions of Rs. 15,71,780/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and Rs. 10,37,348/- as unexplained investment under Section 69A, assessing the total income at Rs. 33,00,198/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a 7-day delay in filing and the absence of an explanation for the delay.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without an application for condonation of delay under Section 249(3) being filed or considered. Considering the principles of natural justice and advocating a pragmatic approach for condonation of delay, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the disputed issues on merits after allowing the assessee to file and considering the application for condonation of delay.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine due to a 7-day delay without considering the condonation of delay application under Section 249(3) of the Act.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 143(2), 142(1), 68, 69A, 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH PANAJI
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
Assessee by None(Letter dt 12-9-25) Revenue by Shri.Ish Gupta.Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 16.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख 17.09.2025 /Date of Pronouncement ORDER
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:
The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act.
The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 18.12.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs.6,91,070/-. Subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS Jagdish shambhu savant. to- verify large cash deposit during the demonetization period and abnormal increase in sales with decrease in profitability. The A.O has issued notice u/sec143 (2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act calling for details in respect of claims and the information supporting the return of income filed. The assesse has filed the details/ information and the Assessing Officer (A.O) has dealt on the submissions/details and find that there are cash deposits during the F.Y.2016-17 in the two bank accounts aggregating to Rs.15,17,780/- in SBN and the assessee was asked to explain the sources of deposits and also a show cause notice was issued, and there was a partial compliance explaining sources and receipts are from petrol bunk business.
3.Whereas the A.O. has dealt on the submissions and was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions of section 68 of the Act and made addition of unexplained cash credits of Rs.15,71,780/- and similarly made addition of unexplained investment in flat u/sec69A of Rs.10,37,348 and finally assessed the total income of Rs.33,00,198/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2019.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas the CIT(A) find that there is a Jagdish shambhu savant. delay of 7 days in filling the appeal and the assessee has not filed/ explained the sufficient reasons/cause for the delay and dismissed the assessee appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
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. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the additions 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 7 days in filling the appeal was not filed before the CIT(A) by the assessee. Therefore 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 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 entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits after considering the application of condonation of delay. The assessee should Jagdish shambhu savant. be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal and the grounds of appeal
of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.09.2025.