Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an ITR for AY 2017-18, declaring an income of Rs. 389610. The case was selected for scrutiny due to large cash deposits and withdrawals reported in SFT003 and SFT004, leading to an addition of Rs. 82,02,003/- by the AO under section 144. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, upholding the addition.
Held
The tribunal condoned a 47-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's village background, illiteracy, and alleged non-receipt of notices or communication from his counsel. It remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
Challenge to the assessment order for being bad in law and taxing entries under sections 69A/69C without proper examination, alleged non-service of notices, and condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1), 144, 69A, 69C, 253(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK
PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM
This appeal by Assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the “(NFAC)”] dated 29.09.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Page 1 of 6
ITA No.- 186/Del/2024 Karambir 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his Income Tax Return for the Year 2017-18 on 14.06.2017 declaring the total income of Rs. 389610. The case was selected under limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the issue of Amount of cash deposit by the assessee during the year in SFT003 and STF004 is significantly large as compared to the returned income, cash withdrawn by the assessee as reported in SFT003 and SFT004 is large as compared to aggregate of gross total income and exempt income as disclosed0 in ITR. In furtherance, notice u/s. 143(2) of the income Tax Act, 1961 issued which was served upon the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s. 142 (1) of the income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on dates 10.01.2019, 04.07.2019, 10.10.2019 and 18.10.2019 respectively, then Learned AO passed order dated 23.12.2019 by total addition of Rs.82,02,003/-. Thereafter against above order assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) and vide order dated 29.09.2003, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by above order, the assessee preferred present appeal before us. 3. Following grounds are taken by the assessee / appellant: “1. That the assessment order passes u/s 144 of the income tax act is bad in law.
Page 2 of 6
ITA No.- 186/Del/2024 Karambir 2. That the same entries were taxed under section 69A and 69C of the Income Tax Act without proper examinations of the bank statement. and on the borrowed satisfaction without application of minds. 3. That no notice was served on the appellant during the pending assessment proceedings and first appellate proceedings. The appellant could not be responsible for the wrong doings of the professional counsel. The responsible professional who was handling the assessment and First appellate proceedings and never communicated any notice to the appellant for the reason best known to that person. If necessary additional / revised / modified grounds of appeal shall be filed at the time of hearing of instant Appeal.” 4. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. 5. By bare perusal of appeal Memo, it reveals that it has not been filed under limitation and in this regard appellant filed Application of condonation of delay under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, for short) and prayed to condone delay of 47 days occurred and decide the appeal on merits, otherwise, appellant will suffer mentally and financially. In the said application, appellant submitted that he has not received any communication from his Advocate, who was earlier taken care of his case before the First Appellate Authority. As per him, he came to know about the rejection of appeal when Mr. Naresh Bhardwaj, Advocate, communicated him in 1st week of December, 2023. He further, added that mail ID which has been shown in Appellate Order of Ld. CIT(A) never belongs to
Page 3 of 6
ITA No.- 186/Del/2024 Karambir appellant himself and having background of village and illiteracy, he is not aware of proceedings of the Income Tax. 5.1 We perused the contents of the application and looking to existing circumstances and also to fulfilment to achieve the object of justice, hereby condone the delay as above in presenting appeal and inclined to decide on its merits. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the materials available on records. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by both the lower authorities by submitting that both lower authorities provided sufficient opportunities to assessee but in vain and said appeal was dismissed by CIT(A) and the addition was upheld by stating that during the appellate proceedings, there was no response from the tax payers i.e. the assessee. 7. In this regard, grievance of appellant is that no notice was properly served to the appellant during the assessment and first appellate proceedings. He also stated that he could not be held responsible for wrong doing of his Counsel, who did not inform him, timely, and the email on which the notices were sent does not belong to him.
Page 4 of 6
ITA No.- 186/Del/2024 Karambir 8. Looking to village’s background of appellant and in the overall circumstances, providing one more opportunity to the assessee will ensure justice to some extent and it is expedient to remit the matter back to the Ld. AO with the direction to decide the matter fresh after giving adequate and meaningful opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with the direction to decide the matter afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings by not seeking any adjournment except due to exceptional or unavoidable circumstances. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22.04.2024
Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22/04/2024. Pooja/-
Page 5 of 6