SHRI BHUSAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (1) , JALANDHAR
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
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.
2 I.T.A. No. 298/Asr/2024 Bhushan Kumar v. ITO Condonation of delay:- It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is 2.
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.
The ld. D.R. has no objection.
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.
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 I.T.A. No. 298/Asr/2024 Bhushan Kumar v. ITO 2. The worthy Income Tax Officer erred in initiative penalty proceeding u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee reserves the right of made any addition, alteration or withdrawal of any grounds of appeal before the completion of hearing.”
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.
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.
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.
4 I.T.A. No. 298/Asr/2024 Bhushan Kumar v. ITO 9. The ld. DR has no objection if the matter is set aside back to the files of the ld.
CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
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.
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.
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned
5 I.T.A. No. 298/Asr/2024 Bhushan Kumar v. ITO
(4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
