Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” BENCH NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI L.P. SAHU
ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 28.12.2011, passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals)- XVI, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the A.Y. 2007-08. Various grounds of appeal of the assessee ha mainly challenged the addition of Rs. 11,53,500/- made by the Assessing Officer. The addition as unexplained cash deposits in the bank account.
2. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 684 days. In the petition for condonation of Page 1 of 5 delay, the assessee submitted that the counsel was handling the matter and wrongly advised the assessee to file rectification u/s 154 before the Learned CIT(Appeals) against the order passed by him. The said petition was not disposed off by the Learned CIT(Appeals) even after elapsed of substantial time. Later on, in the matter pursued before the Learned CIT(Appeals), the assessee was advised that the proper course of action would be to file second appeal before the Tribunal. In pursuance thereof, the assessee filed letter dated 8.10.2013 before the Learned CIT(Appeals) stating that he is withdrawing the said application u/s 154 so as to file the appeal before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the assessee approached a different lawyer for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The delay of 684 days solely due to improper advice given by the counsel as there is no intention of note contesting the addition made in the hands of the assessee who is a senior citizen, the ld. counsel before us. Submitted that the assessee was pursuing another legal proceedings though wrongly advised, he was in a bona fide belief that the remedy against the Learned CIT(Appeals)’s order was filing the review petition u/s 154 rather than referring the second appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. On the other hand the ld. DR strongly objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that pursuing a wrong statutory remedy cannot be a reasonable ground for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee should not be admitted.
We have heard the rival submissions on the issue of condonation of delay and also perused material placed on record. It is seen that against the impugned appellate order dated 28.12.2011, the assessee had filed an application titled as “review of the case of Page 2 of 5 Shri Baljeet Singh” u/s 154. The said application was filed on 4.5.2012, in the said petition, it has been stated that the assessee could not produce relevant facts because the previous Chartered Accountant suffering from Blood cancer and was unable to prepare the case and submit the adequate facts. Later on, he expired. Apart from that he also submitted details for sources of his deposits in the bank account stating that same has been received from his wife and sisters and other relatives. The said money was utilized for construction of house in New Delhi. Since he was a senior citizen, therefore, he was unable to represent the case personally and was dependant on counsel. However, the said petition was disposed off by the Learned CIT(Appeals). It was only when informed to the assessee that proper remedy was to file second appeal before the Tribunal, then he withdrew the said review application filed before the Learned CIT(Appeals) and immediately filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The entire conduct of the assessee appears to be bona fide as it appears that firstly, his earlier counsel could not represent his case of the assessee, he was suffering from blood cancer who eventually died and secondly, did not get proper legal advice for pursuing the remedy before the correct forum. They does not seem to be any latches on the part of the assessee for not pursuing its appeal. Under these facts and circumstances and interest of the substantial justice we are condoning the delay of 684 days and admitted the appeal have appeared on merits. On perusal of the impugned order, we find main issue relates to addition on account of cash deposits with the Standard Chartered Bank for sums of aggregating to Rs. 11,53,500/-. The assessee works as LIC agent and the said cash deposits have been stated to be out of the funds received from his wife, son and sister who is a British resident. It has Page 3 of 5 also been stated before the Learned CIT(Appeals) that the proper evidences could not be furnished because the counsel of the assessee was on bed rest and the assessee himself was a heart patient. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has confirmed the said addition on the ground that the assessee has given explanation which cannot be accepted. We find that though the assessee may have given one explanation before the Assessing Officer, however, the same and substance of the assessee’s contention has been that most of the deposits have come either through very close family members like wife, sister and sons for which day today, since this issue, the entire matter has not be represented properly, therefore, in the interest of justice we feel that the entire issue of unexplained cash deposited in the bank account should be restored back to the Assessing Officer and the assessee would be at liberty to file in such evidence or given explanation in support to substantiate the genuineness of the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer shall given due opportunity to the assessee to represent his case and pass the order in accordance with the law. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14.08.2017.