RAJESH KUMAR,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. NFAC, DELHI
Facts
The assessee deposited ₹55,66,500 in cash during the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained money and made an assessment under section 144. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating the grounds.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation about being disturbed and not being well-versed with tax procedures. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present his case with proper documentation and representation before the AO.
Sections Cited
250, 142(1), 69A, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 22.03.2024. 1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 364 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the assessee was disturbed and after obtaining the record from the previous counsel, necessary details could be made available and prepared for filing the appeal. Moreover, the assessee is not a very literate person and not well-versed with income tax procedure and he was not properly advised by the earlier counsels. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a ITA No.: 266/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajesh Kumar. reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that the order of the Authorities below are bad in law and facts.
For that considering the facts that the appellant is not well versed with the Income tax proceedings and resides at a place where no proper legal services are available, it is humbly being prayed that one more opportunity may kindly be given to the appellant to present his case before the Authorities below, in the interest of justice.
For that the learned CIT(A) should have adjudicated the grounds of appeal, even in ex-parte order and should not have dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the same.
For that the amount deposited in cash during demonetisation period are related to sale proceeds of the business of trading of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides sold to the villagers.
For that the learned A.O. is not justified in considering the amount of 55,56,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A, when the sources are fully explainable.
For that considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant humbly prays for condonation of delay in filing of appeal and also prays for allowing the appellant one more opportunity for making proper submission.
For that the other grounds, if any, will be urged at the time of hearing.”
Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') received information on AIMS Module of ITBA that the assessee had deposited cash of ₹55,66,500/- into two different accounts with SBI at Belwa Rai Tola Branch during demonetisation period. As the return of income was not filed for the AY 2017-18, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued. However, the assessee did not comply ITA No.: 266/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajesh Kumar. with the said notice. The Ld. AO subsequently issued notices on different dates but the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued. Hence, treating the entire cash deposit of ₹55,66,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee after holding that the assessee did not have any explanation regarding the cash deposits except raising multiple grounds of appeal. In the statement of facts, the assessee had claimed that he was engaged in the business of trading in fertiliser, seeds and pesticides through the proprietorship concern in the name of Kushwaha Khad Beej Bhandar. However, since the required documents could not be filed, appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessment order was confirmed.
Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that adequate opportunity was not provided and the deposits related to the business receipts. It was requested that the matter is remanded before the Ld. AO so that the assessee gets adequate opportunity to represent the case. The Bench was of the view that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee as adequate representation was not made. In the interest of justice and fair play, it was considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside ITA No.: 266/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajesh Kumar. the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th January, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 30.01.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) ITA No.: 266/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajesh Kumar. Copy of the order forwarded to:
Rajesh Kumar, Tikulia Chainpur, Turkaulia, East Champaran, Bihar, 845437. 2. NFAC, Delhi.
CIT(A)-
CIT-
CIT(DR), Patna Benches, Patna.
Guard File. //// By order
