HUMAIRA IFTIKHAR,JAWAHAR NAGAR SRINGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR
Facts
The assessee challenged an order by the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13, which originated from an AO order raising additions for unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 28.25 lacs and estimated business profits of Rs. 5.31 lacs. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-compliance. The assessee sought condonation of delay, stating non-receipt of the appellate order and arguing that the bank account with deposits actually belonged to her husband, whose income was already assessed.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the CIT(A) had dismissed it without adjudicating on merits. Recognizing that the assessee's husband's assessment for the same year included consideration of the cash deposits, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide on merits, providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard and submit evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance without addressing the merits, particularly given claims of non-receipt of notices and existing assessment of the husband's income related to the disputed deposits.
Sections Cited
250(6), 147, 144, 148, 143(3), 282, Rule 127 of I.T. Rule, 62, Rule 34(4) of 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 09.11.2023 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), Srinagar dated 08.12.2019 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the I. T. Act, 1961.
2 I.T.A. No. 667/Asr/2024 Humaira Iftikhar v. ITO Condonation of delay:- It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is 2.
belated by 333 days, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay by
way of an affidavit, stating that the correspondence address to which notices were
issued from the office of the ld. CIT(A) where not the addresss of the assessee. It is
submitted that the actual address of correspondence was 472-C, Jawahar Nagar Near
Masjid Usman, Srinagar, J & K-190008, which is matching with the supporting
Aadhar card. He further submitted that the appellate order has not been served or
issued in e-mail id and the assessee has not received the said appellate order within
time and the assessee remained unaware of the existence of the order. Thereafter,
subsequently, gathering information from the department, this appeal has been
prepared and filed belatedly by 333 days which was not due to any willful disregard
or any intentional neglect on the part of the assessee and he prayed for the delay to be
condoned and admission of the appeal to be heard on merits.
The ld. D.R. has no objection.
Considering the submissions in the affidavit, we condone the delay in absence
of any intentional neglect on the part of the assessee and we admit the appeal for
hearing on merits.
The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows:
3 I.T.A. No. 667/Asr/2024 Humaira Iftikhar v. ITO
“1. The Ld. A.O. has treated the cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 26,48,300 in the bank account bearing account number 1111040400002518 as unexplained although this bank account does not belong to the appellant. Further the Ld. A.O. has applied 8% of 2220852 which works out at Rs. 177668 in the same bank account which has also been treated as unexplained. The addition made is unjustified.
The Ld. A.O. has also presumed net profit rate of 8% on the deposits in other bank deposits to the tune of Rs. 6649477 and ascertained net profit of Rs. 531958 despite the fact that majority of these bank accounts does not belong to appellant. The addition made is unjustified
That the Ld. A.O. has erred on facts and in law in completing the assessment the assessment on the basis of assumptions and surmises and totally ignoring the facts of the case.
That the Ld. A.O. has erred in passing the order without giving opportunity of being beard.
That the impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of principles of contemporary jurisprudence.
That the Appellant carves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
The facts emerging from the record are that the Assessing Officer has made an
addition of Rs.33.57 lacs on account of unexplained cash being deposited in bank by
the assessee during the financial year 2011-12. On the basis of information gathered
the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 and in absence of any response from the
assessee to various notices issued by the department an addition of Rs.28.25 lacs has
been made to the total income as unexplained deposits in bank account and a further
4 I.T.A. No. 667/Asr/2024 Humaira Iftikhar v. ITO amount of Rs.5.31 lacs has been added by applying a flat rate of 8% on total bank
deposits, on A/c of business profits.
The matter was carried in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC and the ld. first
appellate authority has dismissed the appeal because of non-compliance on the part
of the assessee to various notices issued on various dates of hearing and it is also seen
that the appeal has not been adjudicated on merits.
The ld. AR of the assessee states that no notice of hearing has been issued in
the e-mail id in Form 35 even though it is seen from the appellate order that the
assesee has requested for an adjournment on one such date of hearing, which proves
that the assessee has received the notice of hearing. However, the ld. AR pressed that
one more opportunity should be allowed to the assessee to furnish all the particulars
and to represent the case properly on merits. He further submitted that the bank
account where cash has been deposited actually belongs to the husband of the
assessee Dr. Mufti Mehmood and the sameis a joint account of the husband and wife.
He further states that the entire deposits in the said account relates to the medical
professional activities of the husband, who is running a medical clinic and pharmacy
at Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar and he submits that the said deposits are all disclosed in
the hands of the husband under PAN: AGFPM 1257Q.
5 I.T.A. No. 667/Asr/2024 Humaira Iftikhar v. ITO 9. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and has no objection if the
matter is remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh verification.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record
and we find that the husband of the assessee Dr. Mufti Mehmood, is separately assess
to tax and his assessment has also been completed for the assessment year 2012-13
u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2019 where the explanations
regarding the cash deposits made in saving bank account maintained with J &K Bank
has been considered. As such, in the interest of justice, we find that all these
materials and documentary evidences on record, has not been considered by the ld.
CIT(A) because the appeal has been disposed of on the ground of non compliance on
the part of the assessee without any adjudication on merits of the case. As such, in the
interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the files of the ld. CIT(A) for
adjudication on merits of the case on the ground contained in Form No. 35, after
allowing a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (Notice
to be issued as per provision of section 282 (read with rule 127 of I.T. Rule, 62).
The assessee is also directed to file all documentary evidences before the ld. first
appellate authority and to fully co-operate in appeal proceedings. We have not
expressed any opinion on merits.
6 I.T.A. No. 667/Asr/2024 Humaira Iftikhar v. ITO 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.
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 (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
