SHRI BHUSAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (1) , JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 298/ASR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 67-day delay in filing the appeal. It observed that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and there was uncertainty regarding the proper issuance of hearing notices. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as per Section 282 of the IT Act read with Rule 127 of the IT Rules.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a liquor dealer, had Rs. 9.93 lacs added to their income under Section 69A during demonetization as unexplained money, after depositing Rs. 60.79 lacs in bank. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without hearing on merits, which the assessee attributed to the death of their counsel and non-receipt of notices/order. The appeal before the ITAT was filed with a 67-day delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudication on merits and proper notice; Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 271AAC,Section 282

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Hearing: 21.04.2025Pronounced: 21.05.2025

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 03.01.2024 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Jalandhar dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the I. T. Act, 1961. belated by 67 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay where it is submitted that the counsel of the assessee Vishwa Mitter Arora, C.A. expired on 31st December, 2023. Since, he was handling the case before the ld. first appellate authority, the matter could not be represented properly because of the death of his counsel and the appellate order passed on 3rd January, 2024 was not received by the assessee and the assessee was unaware of the existence of any such order.

Later on the matter has been handed over to his son Raghav Arora, C.A. who has filed this appeal before the Tribunal and he took some time to search out the old papers and filed this appeal which belatedly filed by 67 days. As such, he prays that the delay may be condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.

3. The ld. D.R. has no objection.

4.

Considering the reasons stated by the assessee and in absence of any intentional neglect on the part of the assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.

5.

The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows:

“1. The worthy Income Tax Officer erred in completing the assessment by making an addition u/s 69A of Rs.993500/- against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The assessee reserves the right of made any addition, alteration or withdrawal of any grounds of appeal before the completion of hearing.”

6.

The ld. AR submits that the assessee is a dealer of foreign liquor and wines carrying on business under licence issued by the State Government Excise Authorities. During the demonetization period, cash has been deposited in the bank account of the assessee amounting to Rs.60.79 lacs in Punjab & Sindh Bank, Jalandhar, out of which Rs.37.93 lacs was deposited in SBN (Specified Bank Notes). The availability of cash as per cash book balance as on 8th November, 2016 was Rs.28 lacs. The remaining balance of Rs.9.93 lacs, being unexplained, was added back to the total income u/s 69A of the Act, as unexplained money.

7.

The matter was carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority which has been dismissed in absence of any response to various notices issued on different dates of hearing.

8.

Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal on various grounds contained in memo of appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that no notices of hearing has been received by the assessee in the e-mail id stated in Form No. 35, as a result of which proper submissions and explanations could not be filed.

CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

10.

We find that the ld. first appellate authority has not adjudicated the appeal on the merits of the case and has not adjudicated on the grounds contained in Form 35 and it is also not ascertainable whether the notices has been issued in the e-mail id contained in Form 35 or not. As such, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority to adjudicate the issues contained in Form No. 35 on merits after allowing a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee (and notices to be issued as per provisions of section 282 of the Act (read with rule 127 of the I.T. Rules.). We have not expressed any opinion on merits.

11.

In the result, the appeal filed by 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 21.05.2025.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →