Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which was delayed by 7 days. The assessee sought condonation of the delay, citing a technical discrepancy in the order from NFAC that caused hurdles in filing. The assessee claimed to be an agriculturist and that the deposited cash was accumulated from agricultural income and past savings of family members.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 7 days. The assessee provided an explanation for the delay, stating it was due to a technical issue with the order from NFAC and the subsequent rectifications required. The Tribunal condoned the delay based on the explanation and the principle of liberal approach in such cases.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and whether the cash deposits made during demonetisation are unexplained.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 148, 144, 69A, 115BBE, 10(1), 253(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH”, PATNA
O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 17.07.2025, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078618111(1) challenging the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).
2. At the outset, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 7 days before the ITAT. In this regard, the assessee has given explanation which is as under:
Amar Nath Singh “I, Amar Nath Singh, most respectfully submit the present application seeking condonation of delay of 7 (seven) days in filing the appeal against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under Section [insert relevant section of order] of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The appeal could not be filed within the prescribed statutory period due to a genuine and unavoidable circumstance. At the time of filing, it was noticed that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not correctly reflected in the order issued through NFAC. This technical discrepancy created hurdles in filing the appeal through the prescribed e-filing portal.
3. In order to resolve this issue, multiple representations and corrections had to be initiated and the order had to be modified/rectified more than twice. This entire process consumed unavoidable time, leading to a short delay of 7 days in the filing of the appeal.
It is humbly submitted that the said delay is purely unintentional and bona fide, and not on account of any negligence, inaction, or mala fide intention on my part. I have always acted with due diligence and have made every effort to file the appeal within time.
In support of this application, I rely upon the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), wherein it has been held that a liberal approach is to be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay so as to advance the cause of substantial justice.
6. It is further submitted that no prejudice or loss shall be caused to the Revenue by condoning such a minimal delay, whereas denial of condonation would result in irreparable loss and hardship to me as an assessee.
7. In view of the above bona fide and sufficient cause, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 7 (seven) days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits, in the interest of justice and equity. PRAYER In the circumstances stated above, I most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: Condone the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal under Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; and pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
On going through the above reasons/explanations, we noted that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the specified time. Therefore, in line of the judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji, (1987) 167 ITR 171 (SC), we condone the delay and the appeal is taking for adjudication.
Amar Nath Singh 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 04.01.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 5,03,010/- as per information with the income tax department. The assessee had deposited cash in his bank account maintained at Punjab National Bank account at Gajraj Ganj Branch of Rs. 19,53,000/- during the demonetisation period as per the ITR return filed by the assessee cash in hand shown as on 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2017 for Rs. 74,195/- and Rs. 49,969/- respectively. The assessee has deposited of Rs. 2,60,000/- in HDFC Bank account also. In view of the above, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147/148 of the Act after obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority and following the procedure laid down. In his response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, assessee did not file any return of income and further notices were issued to the assessee time to time but the assessee did not file any return of income. Finally, a notice on 07.03.2021 was issued to the assessee for giving final opportunity to the assessee to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Act but there was no response. Accordingly, as per the information available with the AO, the total cash credit to Rs. 27,13,000/- and deposited in bank account was stated as unexplained mo9ney u/s 69A of the Act and applied section 115BBE of the Act for computation of income tax.
5. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the details, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT.
The Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and he does not require to maintain any books of accounts the amount deposited are accumulated out of agricultural income and past savings of family members over the years because of demonetisation the cash
Amar Nath Singh maintained were deposited. The assessee was bound to deposit the money in his bank account and to earmark the funds for the solemn occasion of the marriage and deposited such cash. Depositing such hard earned money in the bank was touch prudence but not solemn the assessee had not malafide intent to evade taxes or suppressed income being small agriculturist with no explore to complex taxation so another that such deposits could trigger reassessment proceedings being a small agriculturists the maintenance of in practicable bills and vouchers are not possible and assessee belongs to rural areas wherein cash savings are common, rejection of the payment explanation without considering the factual situation of the assessee is contrary settled position of law which require that explanation be tested on the touchstone of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances here the case of the assessee, the provision of section 69A of the Act is not applicable since the income of the assessee exempt u/s 10(1) of the Act.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that in the preceding two financial years ending the cash in hand shown in the ITR are very minimal and such huge cash deposited by the assessee are excessive. How the assessee has earned the amount from April 2016 to 8th November 2016 has not been explained. Even the assessee not furnished owning of land, nature of products and sales and expenditure received to prove the source of cash, therefore, he requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld.
Considering the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record and order of authorities below and written submission made by the assessee which is placed on record. We noted that during demonetisation period the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 27,13,000/- in his 4 banks accounts, therefore, the case was reopened u/s 147/148 of the Act. During the course of assessment
Amar Nath Singh proceedings, the assessee could not establish the source of cash deposits during demonetisation period as per the observation of the AO, from the previous year’s information with the income tax department filed by the assessee the cash in hand or less than Rs. 1 lac for previous two years and the assessee has also not explained the cash earned from the April 2016 to 8th November 2016 of Rs. 27,13,000/-. Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we remit this issue back to the file of AO for denovo consideration giving one more chance to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits and decide the issue as per law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to substantiate his case with cogent documents in support of the case and not to seek any unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. We make it clear that in case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 21.01.2026