SOOFI TYRE PALACE,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 151/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 August 2025AY 2016-17Bench: lower authorities. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

Following Supreme Court principles, the Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to present their case forthwith. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2012-13 with a delay of 565 days, seeking condonation. The assessment was framed ex-parte under Sections 144 and 147 of the Act, with an addition of Rs. 116.05 Lacs cash deposit, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee, an agriculturist, claimed ignorance of the proceedings and sought an opportunity to substantiate his case.

What were the issues?

Condonation of significant delay in filing appeal and the opportunity for the assessee to present evidence for a cash deposit assessment framed on a best judgment basis.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →