Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturist and ration depot worker, made an unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 32,37,400/- in his savings bank account. The AO made an addition under Section 69A after ex-parte proceedings under Sections 144 and 147. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation and lack of substantiated explanation, despite the assessee claiming the funds were from daily sales and withdrawals for depot items.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a 25-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the explanation genuine. It observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to substantiate the source of the cash deposit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, directing the CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard and to consider all evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the addition under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 32,37,400/- was justified, requiring fresh consideration of evidence by the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: MS MADHUMITA ROY
PER MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), New Delhi, arising out of the order dated 14.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(1), Saharanpur, (hereinafter referred to as the “AO”) under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Page1 Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2012-13.
The appeal is barred by limitation for 25 days due to engagement of new counsel in the matter which has been brought to our notice by filing an application for Condonation of Delay. The explanation granted by the assessee seems to be genuine and hence allowed.
Before the Learned CIT(A), the appeal was filed late, barred by limitation for about 176 days which was not properly explained and hence it was dismissed. However, it appears from the records that the issue involved in this matter being cash deposit of Rs. 32,37,400/- in the Saving Bank account of Punjab National Bank, Saharanpur, during the year by the assessee could not be explained before the Learned AO in spite of repeated notices served upon the assessee including show cause for ex-parte proceeding under Section 144 of the Act in the re- opening proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, neither the assessee complied the same by filing return nor explained the source of cash deposit, addition, therefore, under Section 69A of the Act was made. 3, The assessee is an agriculturist having 50 bighas of agricultural land and also doing work at the ration depot for 40 years, having commercial income on sale of sugar, kerosene oil and food grain on behalf of the State Food and Supply Department. The case of the assessee is that the cash deposit made in the Saving Bank account was out of the daily sale amount and withdrawals for the purchase of depot items. However, such explanation given by the Learned AR has not been Page2 substantiated by corroborative evidence, hence the appeal is disposed of by setting aside the issue to the Learned CIT(A) for consideration of the same on merits afresh and to pass a reasoned order. While doing so, the Learned CIT(A) is directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to consider the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the appeal. With the aforesaid observation assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.