DEEPENDRA KUMAR,ETAH vs. ITO,WARD-4(3)(1), ETAH
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 331/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13
Deependra Kumar, Mudsama, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Nimakhera, Etah-207302 (UP). Ward 4(3)(1),Etah. PAN :BATPK7392D (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Manoj Kumar, CA Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 15.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.11.2025
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 passed in Appeal No. CIT (A) Aligarh/10355/2019-
20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012-13, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed
assessee’s appeal ex parte.
At the very outset, it is noted that this appeal was filed on 27.06.2025 against the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 by a delay of about 944 days.
ITA No. 331/Agr/2025
The reasons for delay assigned in the delay condonation application are that
the delay in filing the second appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate,
but was caused due to assessee’s unawareness regarding time lines of
appeal, lack of communication and assistance and disruptions by COVID- 19. Prayed to condone the delay.
It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot
be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no
party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the
process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be
followed. The object of prescribing certain time period for filing of the appeal
is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In the instant case, the uncontroverted
reasons mentioned in the delay condonation application are treated as
sufficient. The said delay of about 944 days caused in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned.
Briefly stated, the facts are that based on the information available
with the department, it was noticed that the appellant assessee had deposited cash aggregating to ₹14,35,000/- on various dates in his bank
2 | P a g e
ITA No. 331/Agr/2025
account No. 0370101027294 maintained with Canara Bank, Awagarh, Etah.
Consequently, proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(“the Act”) were initiated. During the course of verification, the assessee
explained that the cash deposits were sourced from withdrawals made from
his savings bank account, Kisan Credit Card (KCC) account, and
agricultural income. However, the Assessing Officer noted that no
documentary evidence in support of these explanations was furnished. A
notice dated 25.03.2019 under Section 148 of the Act was issued and duly
served upon the assessee, but no compliance was made. Subsequently,
statutory notices issued under Sections 142(1) and 144 of the Act also
remained unresponded. Upon examination of the bank statement of the
aforesaid savings account and KCC account No. 1178416399, the
Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited cash amounts
of Rs.1,35,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, and Rs.4,00,000/- on
06.04.2011, 01.06.2011, 23.06.2011, and 04.02.2012, respectively. Further,
the assessee had withdrawn sums of Rs.2,98,400/- on 23.06.2011 and
Rs.2,90,000/- on 16.02.2012 from his KCC account. Since no cash deposits
were found to have been made after 14.02.2012, the Assessing Officer
accepted the cash deposit of Rs.2,98,400/-, corresponding to the withdrawal
from the KCC account on 23.06.2011, as explained. The balance cash
deposits amounting to Rs.11,36,600/- were treated as unexplained and 3 | P a g e
ITA No. 331/Agr/2025
added to the total income of the assessee as undisclosed income along with
addition of Rs.15,818/-, being interest income from the said bank account,
as income from other sources. Accordingly, the assessment was completed
under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, vide order dated
07.11.2019 at a total income of Rs.11,52,420/-.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals),
who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte.
Appellant assessee has filed this appeal on the ground, in addition to
others, that that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in affirming the assessment
order without properly allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee for
explaining the case on merits and without admitting and considering the
additional evidences filed under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
Perused the record. Heard learned representative for assessee and
learned Sr. DR for revenue.
We note that ld. CIT(Appeals) issued notices dated 15.12.2021,
04.04.2022, 22.06.2022 and 21.10.2022 to assessee, who remained
irresponsive. Learned CIT(Appeals), thus passed ex parte impugned order,
dismissing assessee’s first appeal. Perusal of assessment order also
shows that due to irresponsive conduct of the assessee, learned Assessing
4 | P a g e
ITA No. 331/Agr/2025
Officer was compelled to pass best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the
Act. Such an irresponsive and reluctant conduct of the assessee is
unacceptable, however, in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper
to afford an opportunity to the appellant assessee to make his submissions
before the Assessing Officer. The matter is thus remitted back to the file of
Assessing Officer for passing order afresh in accordance with law after
taking assessee’s submissions into consideration. We further direct the
assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the proceedings and
making submissions with supporting evidence before the learned Assessing
Officer for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say that
learned Assessing Officer shall ensure the observance of the principles of
natural justice.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The
impugned order dated 25.11.2022 is set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26.11.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra 5 | P a g e
