RAMEEZ RAJA BHAT,BUGAM BATAPORA CHADOORA BUDGAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 SRINAGAR, SILK FACTORY ROAD RAJBAGH SRINAGAR
Facts
The assessee, a livestock trader, appealed against an ex-parte assessment order made under Section 144, which included additions for unexplained SBN deposits and business profits. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudication on merits due to non-compliance. The appeal to the Tribunal was filed with a delay of 338 days, which the assessee sought to condone, citing reasons like non-receipt of notices and his lawyer's medical issues.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 338-day delay, finding no intentional neglect, given the assessee's background and his lawyer's illness. Observing that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the merits and had not considered fresh evidence, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide all supporting documents.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Validity of additions for unexplained SBN deposits and business profits; Failure of CIT(A) to adjudicate appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 144, Section 270A, Section 271AAC(1), Section 69A, Section 142(1), Section 133(6), 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: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 198/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18
Rameez Raja Bhat Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bugam Batapora Chadoora Ward-2, Srinagar Budgam, J & K 191113 [PAN: CDVPB 5195D] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : None (Written submission) : Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025
ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 05.01.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has
emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward-2 Srinagar u/s 144 of the Act, 1961 dated
29.12.2019.
2 I.T.A. No. 198/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is filed
with a delay of 338 (three hundred thirty-eight days). The assessee has filed an
application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit that neither any notices of
hearing nor any copy of first appeal order has been received by the assessee and he is
engaged in the business of purchase and sales of “jersy cows /Milch, and has no
knowledge of computer systems and is fully dependent on his lawyer who was
suffering from serious kidney problems and was undergoing treatment. The first appeal order dated 5th January, 2024, was never received by the assessee and weather the same
was served on his lawyer / counsel, it is also not known to him. The assessee came to know of the appeal order after the penalty notices u/s 270A and u/s 271AAC (1) both dated 4th February, 2025, has been served on him physically (a copy of which is
attached with the application) by the employee of the verification unit. Thereafter, he appointed his CA, who assisted him in filing this appeal on 4th March, 2025, which is
belated by 338 days. He prayed for condonation of delay which was not attributable to
him and because of medical issues of his earlier counsel who failed to attend to the
online proceedings on his behalf.
The Ld. DR raised his objection, considering the length of the delay but
considering the medical issues of the counsel he left it the discretion of the bench.
3 I.T.A. No. 198/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 4. We have considered the contents of the affidavit, and the submissions, and even
though the delay is long, we are of the opinion that the assessee is a livestock trader
engaged in the purchase and sale of jersy cows and is not conversant with computer
systems and tax matters and is fully dependent on his lawyer, who was medically
indisposed. The appeal has been filed within one month of the receipt of the penalty
notices, where the assessee learnt about the existence of the appeal order in quantum
proceedings, and we conclude that there was no intentional or willful neglect on the
part of the assessee in filing this appeal. As such we condone the delay and admit the
appeal to be decided on merits.
The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal and all the grounds are related
to the addition sustained by the Ld. first appellate authority, on account of SBN
deposits of Rs. 13.31 lakhs treated as unexplained u/s 69A plus an addition of Rs. 10.49
lakhs as business profits calculated @ 8% of balance cash deposited in bank throughout
the year.
In absence of any return on record and in absence of any response to notices
issued u/s 142(1) and subsequent notices issued by the AO in course of assessment
proceedings, the assessment has been completed ex-parte on the basis of information
gathered from banks u/s 133(6) of the Act 61.
4 I.T.A. No. 198/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 7. The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. first appellate
authority in absence of any response to notices issued on various dates of hearing and
in absence of any explanation to source of cash deposited in banks during demo period.
Before the tribunal the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted a short paper book (
fresh evidence ) containing copies of bank statements, profit and loss A/c, print out of
cash book for the relevant period, bank certificates giving break up of SBN deposits
and other particulars, and submitted that the assessee is engaged in livestock trading (
purchase and sale of jersy cows ) and the cash deposit in banks are his business sale
proceeds , and the total of SBN deposits as certified by bankers is only Rs. 6.12 lakhs
(and not Rs. 13.31 lakhs as wrongly observed by the AO), because the rest of the bank
deposits as certified by the bank , are all new currency, and he further added that the
deposits of SBN are out of availability of cash as on the date of demonetization , as
recorded in cash book ( now filed for examination ) , and he prayed for a proper hearing
, because notice of hearing from the first appeal authority has never been received by
the assessee.
The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) but has no objection if the
matter is remanded back.
We have considered the materials on record and we find that neither the bankers
certificate nor the cash book, has been filed before lower authorities, and the Ld.
5 I.T.A. No. 198/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal on merits in absence of documentary
evidences before him and it is also not ascertainable as to which mail id the notice of
hearing has been served on the assessee.
As such we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the
matter is remanded to the Ld. first appellate authority to adjudicate on all the grounds
contained in form 35 on merits and the assessee is directed to file all supporting
documents including cash book and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings for
proper disposal of the appeal.
The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of hearing and notice to be
issued as per provisions of section u/s 282 of the Act and also in email id as stated in
Form 35.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues are left open
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 10.11.2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to:
6 I.T.A. No. 198/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18
(1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
