Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act due to cash deposits totaling Rs. 1,24,75,984/- in bank accounts, as the assessee had not filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer added this amount to the assessee's income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 43 days, with the CIT(A) finding the reasons for the delay to be insufficient.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and condoned the delay. It was noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by sufficient reason and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 69A, 115BBE, 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH ‘DB’ AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
Date of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against an order dated 18.03.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Ld. CIT(A), relating to Assessment Year 2016-17 arising out of assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 19.02.2024.
Brief facts of the case:-The assessment in this case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.52,25,000/-in the accounts maintained with State Bank of India and HDFC Bank Ltd. respectively. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee had not filed his return of income. Several opportunities as noted by the Assessing Officer in para-2 of the assessment order were given to the assessee not reply was filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that the sum total credits in the said two bank accounts was Rs.1,24,75,984/- and a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee to explain as to why the said amount should not be added to the income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further observed that since the assessee was not coming for hearing, it means that he has nothing to say in this regard. He, accordingly, added a sum of Rs.1,24,75,984/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) noted that there was a delay in filing of the appeal by 43 days on the ground that in Form No.35 on the one hand, the assessee states that he received the assessment order dated 19.02.2024 on 19.02.2024 and on the other hand, it is stated that it did not receive the ex-parte order in time which according to the ld. CIT(A), is self-contradictory. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that it was duty of the assessee to update the e-mail/address so that the notice could be sent at the correct e-mail/address. Further, taking note of the fact that the assessee was on bed rest from 16.03.2024 and 01.04.2024, he observed that the assessee could have filed the appeal immediately, after completing the bed rest as advised by the doctor, which he failed to do so by filing the appeal on 03.05.2024. It was further noted by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee’s submission regarding the delay in filing of the appeal that the order was in the drawer of counsel who was out of station and the office renovation work was in process shows the callous attitude of the appellant and counsel of the assessee towards statutory notices/orders issued by the Department which is not acceptable. In view of these facts, the ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within the specified period and hence it was not admitted by him. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for statistical purpose which was not required to be adjudicated on merits.
4. Aggrieved with the said order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
The ld. AR of the assessee referred to the ground no.7 of the appeal which is reproduced as under:-
“7. Because the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay of only 43 days was unintentional and caused due to genuine hardship, including health issues of the appellant and his representative and due to disruption in office functioning due to renovation, which constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249(3).” 5.1. Further, the ld. AR referred to the facts stated in the statement of facts filed before the Tribunal. The relevant para no.2, 4, 6 and 7 of the said statement of facts are reproduced as under:-
That the appellant is an individual residing in a rural area and is inadequately educated, having limited formal schooling. He lives with his elder brother, Shri Maharaj Singh, who is an illterate person. Both the appellant and his elder brother are jointly engaged in agricultural activities. relying entirely on farming as their primary occupation. They cultivate the land together and earn their livelihood by selling the agricultural produce. The appellant and his elder brother jointly own and possess agricultural land measuring approximately 30.98 bighas, which serves as the main source of income for their families. However the appellant also engaged in the trading activity of building material in the name and style of M/S J.P. Cement Agency at Goplapura Agra road shamsabad district Agra. xxxxxxxxxxx
That the appellant was completely unaware of any assessment proceedings initiated against him, as he did not receive any notice directly from the Income Tax Department. With respect to notices issued via the Income Tax portal and email communications, it is respectfully submitted that the appellant uses only a basic feature phone and is not familiar with modern technology or digital communication platforms. He does not maintain or operate any personal email address. It is further submitted that the email address jagdishpradan1 11@rajeevtomar.in was created and managed solely by his counsel, Mr. Rajeev Tomar, for the purpose of filing returns . The appellant neither has access to the said email account nor does he possess the login credentials. As a result, he was not in a position to access any emails or notifications sent by the Income Tax Department, and was thus unable to participate in the assessment proceedings or file any submissions in his defence, The appellant became aware of the ex parte assessment order only when he visited the office of his counsel, Mr. Rajeev Tomar, for the purpose of filing his income tax return for the Assessment Year 2024-25. Until that point, he had no knowledge of any ongoing or concluded proceedings. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6. That on 05/10/2024 the first appeal authority ie. CIT(A) / NFAC issued a notice u/s 250 for the hearing of the said appeal in response of the said notice the appellant filed his written submission alongwith the corroborative documentary evidence in support of his grounds of appeal.
7. That on 18/03/2025 the Ld, CIT(A) passed his order on the technical ground by rejecting the application to condone delay and dismissed the said appeal on the basis of limitation. That Ld. CIT(A) was supposed to pass his order on the merits of the case rather than rejecting the appeal solely on technical grounds related to limitation, especially when the assessment order was also passed ex parte.” 6. The ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
Considering the background of the assessee and the facts stated regarding the delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing of the appeal. We therefore condone the said delay before the ld. CIT(A). As noted the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal on merits. In view of the fact that we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and also the facts as stated in para 6 of the statement of facts that the assessee had filed his written submission along with corroborative evidence in support of grounds of appeal, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set-aside and matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after considering the above submission and also allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, the assessee is also permitted to file any further details in support of his claim before the Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th July, 2025.