NANDKISHOR MAHADEO BANCHHODE,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(2)(3). MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2924/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 November 20244 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the facts and circumstances, including the assessee being an NRI and the reasonable cause for the delay. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits of the case, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with a due opportunity to be heard and to make requisite compliance. The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was initially filed on 10.01.2020, but the challan was for the wrong assessment year, leading to a second appeal filed on 27.08.2022 as a precautionary measure. The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay due to the assessee's NRI status. The issue of addition of Rs. 15,59,000/- under section 69A and the applicability of section 115BBE were not decided on merits by the Tribunal, as the case was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nandkishor Mahadeo Banchhode, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 17.09.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 15,59,000/- under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained money, after selecting the case for scrutiny to verify cash deposited during demonetization. The assessee had declared an income of Rs. 12,79,530/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as inadmissible due to a delay of 979 days, considering only 717 days covered by Supreme Court orders related to COVID-19 extensions, leaving 262 days unexplained. The assessee's appeal before the Tribunal challenges this ex-parte order and the dismissal on grounds of delay and merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) NFAC was justified in passing an ex-parte order without appreciating that the appellant had duly submitted his reply on delay and merit before the due date, thus passing the order on wrong facts. 2. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without properly appreciating that the appellant filed the appeal on 10.01.2020, and a second appeal was filed as a precautionary measure due to a challan error, and that the delay was reasonable given the appellant's NRI status and unfamiliarity with tax laws. 3. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) NFAC was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,59,000/- made by the AO under section 69A and subsequently under section 115BBE, without appreciating that the addition was based on presumption, the bank account was self-explanatory showing withdrawals before demonetization for house renovation, and there was no undisclosed income. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite timely submissions. The delay in filing the appeal was reasonable due to the assessee being an NRI, out of India for most of the period, and not conversant with income tax law. The second appeal was filed as a precautionary measure due to a challan error. The addition of Rs. 15,59,000/- was based on presumption, as the bank account showed withdrawals for house renovation before demonetization, and no finding was given on debit entries. The addition under section 69A and 115BBE was unjustified as there was no unexplained or undisclosed income. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Hearing: 15.10.2024Pronounced: 12.11.2024

Appellant by : None Respondent by : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Date of Hearing 15.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 17.09.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in passing exparte order without appreciating that appellant have duly A.Y. 2017

18. Nandkishor Mahadeo Banchhode submitted his reply on delay as well as on merit before the due date of notice and thus order was passed on wrong facts.

2.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without properly appreciating the facts of the case as on the facts and circumstances of case the appellant have duly filed the appeal on 10.01.2020 and another appeal was filed as a precautionary measure since the appeal challan in the earlier appeal was paid in wrong assessment year and this fact was duly given in the form 35 and appellant have also enclosed the earlier form 35 along with the second appeal which was preferred on 27.08.2022 as a precautionary measure and thus if this fact was considered properly there was no delay in filing the appeal 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without appreciating that appellant is an NRI and most of the period he was out of India and there was reasonable cause in filing the appeal with delay as he was not conversant with the income tax law and second appeal on the same issue was on misconception and due to ignorance of law.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC failed to appreciate that action of AO with regard to the addition of Rs.15,59,000 is on presumption as addition was made on the basis of bank account and bank. account itself is self explanatory as appellant is a salaried employee and have made the withdrawal from the bank before the demonetization for renovation of house and same was deposited in bank account as these are not the legal tender after the demonetization and no finding on the debit entries was given in the assessment order.

5.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.15,59,000 without appreciating that appellant is filing his return from last so many years and does not have any other source of income other than salary and addition cannot be made on presumption and assumption and when it was duly explained before lower authorities also along with the bank statement.

6. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to initiation of section 69A without appreciating that it is not an unexplained money and addition was made only on presumption and no application of mind was applied.

7.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to application of section 115BBE without appreciating that there is no undisclosed income and therefore application of section 115BBE is not applicable.”

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return declaring income of Rs. 12,79,530/- on 05.08.2017. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify cash deposited during the demonetization period. After considering the assessee’s submissions, the AO passed the assessment order after making an A.Y. 2017-18 Nandkishor Mahadeo Banchhode addition of Rs. 15,59,000/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money.

4.

Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as inadmissible holding that there was total delay of 979 days, out of which only 717 days were covered by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to extension of timelines during Covid Pandemic. Remaining delay of 262 days was treated as unexplained and therefore, the appeal was dismissed as inadmissible vide order dated 17.09.2023.

5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before us. We have considered the material available before us. It is seen that the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) had been initially filed on 10.01.2020, however, the challan for appeal was made for wrong assessment year. Accordingly, the assessee filed another appeal on 27.08.2022 as a precautionary measure. It is further observed that the assessee was an NRI during the most of the period under consideration, as such there was reasonable cause for filing of the appeal with delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we, hereby, condone the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A). As Ld. CIT(A) has not gone into merits of the issue, we deem it proper to restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A). He is directed to decide the appeal on merits after giving due A.Y. 2017-18 Nandkishor Mahadeo Banchhode opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A).

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.11.2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →