SURJIT SINGH PARMAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR
Facts
The assessee, an LPG distributor, faced an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 for AY 2017-18, with additions related to SBN deposits during demonetization and other bank credits, as the assessee could not represent the case due to a medical emergency. The first appellate authority (CIT(A)) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine under section 249(3) citing a delay of over two years in filing.
Held
The Tribunal found that the actual delay in filing the appeal was only 59 days, satisfactorily explained by medical certificates, with the remaining period covered by TOLA extensions. It noted that the assessment was ex-parte, ignoring the uploaded tax audit report and financials. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the AO to consider relevant circulars and provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; validity of ex-parte assessment and non-consideration of uploaded documents; treatment of SBN cash deposits during demonetization for an LPG distributor.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 144, Section 249(3), Section 44AB, Section 69A, Section 282, Rule 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA & SH. KHETTRA MOHAN ROY
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 24.08.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has
emanated from the order of the AO, Ward, Jalandhar passed u/s 144 of the Act, 1961
dated 18.12.2019.
2 I.T.A. No. 303/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. The assessee has preferred only two grounds of appeal in form 36, and the
main contention is that the Ld first appellate authority has refused to admit the appeal
for adjudication on merits of the case due to the fact that the appeal is filed belatedly,
by more than two years, and is hit by the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act 61
and the other ground of appeal is against the merits of the case.
Brief facts emerging are that the assessee is a dealer of BPCL (Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd) engaged in the business of distribution of LPG cylinders
(liquid petroleum gas) , and the gross receipts for the year amounted to Rs. 7.14
crores, which has been duly disclosed in audited trading and profit and loss account
uploaded with TAR u/s 44AB of the Act 61, within the extended time , but the
contents of the TAR has been ignored and not given any cognizance by the AO in
course of assessment proceedings, due to the inability of the assessee to represent the
case on account of medical emergency.
Assessment has been completed ex parte, in absence of any ITR being filed ( 4.
though TAR has been uploaded in the portal) , and the assessment has been
completed on a total income of Rs. 1.64 crores (including an addition of Rs.1.23
crores u/s 69A being deposit of SBN during demonetization ) plus an addition of
Rs.41.01 lakhs estimated @ 10% of remaining credits in bank ( excluding SBN ) .
3 I.T.A. No. 303/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 5. The matter carried in first appeal has been dismissed by the Ld CIT (A), in
limine, by invoking the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act , refusing to admit the
appeal for adjudication on merits , because the appeal was belatedly filed which was
delayed by more than two years.
Now, the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal on the grounds contained in
the memorandum of appeal.
In course of hearing the Ld AR of the assessee, filed a short synopsis with the
computation of delay in filing the appeal before first appellate authority and
submitted that the actual delay in filing the appeal was only of 59 (fifty nine days)
which was on account of medical emergency, and rest of the period is covered by the extension under TOLA, and in the instant case the appeal has been efiled on 22nd
January, 2022 (with the extended period itself).
The summary of the calculation as submitted explaining the delay are as
follows:
18th December, 2019 Order passed by AO :
17th January, 2020 Due Date of filing 30 days time :
15th March , 2020 Actual delay only 59 days till
25th February, 2022 Period covered under COVID
4 I.T.A. No. 303/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 22nd January, 2022 Appeal filed within COVID period :
The actual delay is only 59 days after excluding of COVID period .
In order to explain the delay from 17th January, 2020 to 15th March, 2020 , the 9.
Ld AR has submitted medical certificates from “New Lifeline Multispeciality
Hospital “, Bhatinda , certified by Dr Rajinder Pal Singh , Neuropsychiatrist , that
the assessee ( patient ) was under medical treatment since year 2018 and is suffering
from OC2 model depression ( placed in page 32 of PB ) and treatment is still
ongoing. There are other medical certificates issued by “ Global Healthcare “
Bhatinda , during the period August 2015 through may 2017 , along with copies of
prescriptions, as evidence that the assessee was under continuous medical treatment (
placed in page -33 of PB ) .
On merits of the case he submitted that the assessee is a distributor of LPG
cylinders (under BPCL) and sale proceeds collected from LPG consumers, has been
deposited in bank account and the deposit of SBN in bank during demo period was
perfectly legal because the assesee being LPG dealer, acceptance of SBN was permitted by the Government up till 15th December, and the cash deposit thereafter,
in bank account are out of fresh collection of sale proceeds against new currency.
5 I.T.A. No. 303/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 11. As such , he prays for condonation of delay of only 59 days in filing his appeal
and also prays for a proper opportunity of hearing to explain his case along with
supporting documents including books of accounts, audited financials, vis a vis the
tax audit report in form 3CB and 3CD already on record, and in terms of Government
notification no 2653 dated 08/11/2016, which permits acceptance of SBN by LPG
distributors during demo period and submits that no adverse inference should be
drawn in this case.
The Ld. DR relies on the order of the Ld first appellate authority but has no
objection if the matter is remanded back to the AO for examination of books of
accounts and for completion of fresh assessment.
We have considered the materials on record and the rival arguments and we
find that in the instant case the delay of 59 (fifty nine days) has been satisfactorily
explained by the assessee, supported by medical certificates and the rest of the period
are covered by extension under TOLA and the appeal itself has been filed before the
first appellate authority within the extended period.
Secondly, we find that the assessment has been completed ex-parte, without
hearing the assessee and without considering the tax audit report and audited
financials uploaded in online portal within due time u/s 44AB of the Act 61 and
available for consideration before the AO.
6 I.T.A. No. 303/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 15. Moreover, it is a case of cash deposit during demo period, which needs to be
explained by production of regular cash book, before the AO along with supporting
documentary evidences, invoices, bank statements, and all other relevant particulars.
As such we are of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the matter is set
aside back to the files of the AO for fresh assessment as per provisions of law taking
into consideration the relevant board circulars and Government notifications
applicable to LPG distributors . The assessee is also directed to file all documentary
evidences to explain his return and to fully cooperate in fresh proceedings.
The assessee will be allowed proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard
and notice to be issued as per provisions of section 282 of the Act (r.w.r. 127 of
Rules 62).
We have not expressed any opinion on merits on the documents produced
before us and all legal issues are left open.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 18.11.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (Khettra Mohan Roy) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member
7 I.T.A. No. 303/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
