KYALASANAHALLI NARAYANAPPA SUBRAMANI,CNO KOTHANUR POST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1) BENGALURU , KORAMANGALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1256/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 August 2024AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by condoning the delay initially and then dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds in the final order. The Tribunal also found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be reasonable.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 75,44,398/- as unexplained cash credit. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was delayed by 99 days, which was initially condoned by the CIT(A) but later dismissed on grounds of limitation in the final order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal on limitation after having condoned the delay, and whether the assessee's reasons for delay were sufficient.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Hearing: 06.08.2024Pronounced: 28.08.2024

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 7.5.2024 in respect of the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

The assessee is an individual aged about 52 years and doing agricultural activities. The AO made an assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by making an addition of Rs.75,44,398/- as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Against the said proceedings, the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 99 days. The ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and therefore, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before us challenging the said order on the following grounds:

Kyalasanahalli Narayanappa Subramani, Bengaluru Page 3 of 4 3. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. filed a paper book by enclosing synopsis as well as the various hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and also copy of ITR filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee being an agriculturist and also not well educated, he was not well versed with the modern technology and therefore, he was not viewed the e-mails, SMSs, etc. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) in his notice dated 27.9.2021 had condoned the delay in filing the appeal but while passing final order, he had rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was time barred. The ld. A.R. further stated that the assessee is having a good case on merits since the agricultural income earned by the assessee was shown in the return and therefore, he contended that further additions made u/s 68 of the Act is unwarranted.

4.

The ld. D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. As rightly contended by the ld. A.R. in the notice dated 27.9.2021, DIN & Letter No.ITBA/NFAC/F/17/2021-22/1035926243(1), the ld. CIT(A) had given the following finding:

Kyalasanahalli Narayanappa Subramani, Bengaluru Page 4 of 4 5.1 As seen from the above said notice, the ld. CIT(A) had condoned the delay of 99 days in filing the appeal but strangely while deciding the appeal on merits, had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. In our view, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not correct since he had already condoned the delay and therefore, he has no authority to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation while passing the final order on 7.5.2024. Further, we have also considered the submission of the assessee to the effect that he being an uneducated person, has not verified the e-mails and therefore, he was not able to appear before the ld. CIT(A), seems to be a reasonable and acceptable one. In fine we have satisfied ourselves that the reasons stated by the assessee are a reasonable one and therefore, we are setting aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits after granting a personnel hearing.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →