Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 challenged a best judgment assessment made u/s 144 r.w.s. 147, where a cash deposit of Rs. 116.05 Lacs was added, and this was confirmed by the CIT(A). There was a delay of 565 days in filing the appeal, for which condonation was sought with a medical certificate, as the assessee, an agriculturalist, claimed unawareness of income tax proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, condoning the delay citing principles from N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy. It set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to present their case forthwith.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal; Whether the addition of cash deposit should be set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication due to lack of assessee's representation at lower levels.
Sections Cited
144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JM
O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of an order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 28-06- 2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 14-12- 2019. The registry has noted delay of 565 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by medical certificate. The assessee-in-person was also present in court and stated that he being an agriculturalist was not aware about income tax proceedings. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate its claim if another opportunity of hearing is granted to the assessee to plead and prove its case before lower authorities. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.
In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of cash deposit of Rs.116.05 Lacs for want of any representation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for the same very reasons. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Keeping in mind the guiding principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123), we admit the appeal. Further, accepting the prayer of Ld. AR, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication by way of speaking order with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07-08-2025 आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. ""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF