SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH
Facts
The assessee appealed against orders of the CIT(Appeals) which dismissed appeals for non-prosecution, confirming additions made by the AO and a penalty. The appeals were filed with a significant delay, which the assessee attributed to being unaware of the orders due to his profession as a police constable and being posted at a remote location.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It was observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matters back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate and ensuring principles of natural justice are followed.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(Appeals) without considering the merits are justifiable.
Sections Cited
69A, 147, 144, 271(1)(c), 250, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 90 & 91/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14
Satyendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Vill. Nagla Gaja, Post Sarawa, Ward 2(2)(5), Etawah. Etawah (UP). PAN : CDMPS9375M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Advocate & Sh. Manuj Sharma, Advocate Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.05.2025
ORDER Per:Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member: Both these appeals have been preferred by assessee against the separate impugned orders each dated 18.01.2024 passed in Appeals No. NFAC/2012-13/10104584 and NFAC/2012-13/10104583 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 [AY] 2013-14, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has
ITA No. 90 & 91/Agr/2025
dismissed assessee’s first appeals for non-prosecution, confirming the
addition of Rs.11,31,000/- made u/s. 69A of the Act on account of
unexplained cash deposit in assessee’s bank account, addition of
Rs.3,04,874/- made as undisclosed salary credited to the same bank
account, addition of Rs.15,880/- as undisclosed interest income by the
Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 20.09.2021 passed u/s.
147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals) has also confirmed
consequential penalty of Rs.2,73,490/- imposed by the Assessing Officer,
vide penalty order dated 21.03.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Perused the records and heard the ld. Authorized Representative for
the assessee and the ld. Departmental representative for the Revenue.
At the very outset, ld. Representative for the assessee submitted
that these appeals have been filed on 21.02.2025 against impugned
orders each dated 18.01.2024 by a delay of about 340 days. Ld. AR of
the assessee has, in accordance with the condonation applications,
submitted that the appellant/assessee, being a police constable engaged
in strict duties outside and not maintaining computer etc., was unaware of
the impugned order/notices of the ld. CIT(Appeals). It was in the month of
January, 2025 when he was posted at Prayagraj in Kumbh Mela, the
appellant contacted his counsel and took immediate steps to file the
2 | P a g e
ITA No. 90 & 91/Agr/2025
appeals. Assessee has also filed his affidavit in support of delay
condonation application. Prayed to condone the delay as not being
intentional.
The facts deposed in the affidavit are uncontroverted. Hence, in the
interest of justice, we find sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing
these appeals. We condone the delay accordingly caused in filing both
these appeals.
Since both these appeals are interlinked to each other, inasmuch as
the penalty proceedings in question are based on the additions made in
assessment order u/s. 147 of the Act, both the appeals are being decided
by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the
impugned orders have been passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), ex parte
without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Prayed to set aside the impugned orders.
Learned DR has submitted that the assessee was provided
sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(Appeals) on various
occasions, but for no avail. Learned DR has supported the impugned
order.
3 | P a g e
ITA No. 90 & 91/Agr/2025
Perusal of the impugned orders shows that during the appellate
proceedings against the assessment order and penalty proceedings, the
appellant/assessee was issued separate notices by the first appellate
authority on 29.12.2023 and 05.01.2024, which remained un-responded
by the assessee. Such an irresponsive conduct of the assessee cannot
be appreciated. It is however noticed that learned CIT(Appeals) has
passed ex-parte impugned orders without any discussion on the merits of
the cases, whereas learned CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the
points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision
as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest
of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last
opportunity to the assessee and remit the matters back to the files of
learned CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits. We order accordingly.
We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending
the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(Appeals) for
the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee shall refrain from
seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons.
Needless to say that learned CIT(Appeals) shall ensure the observance of
the principles of natural justice. Both the appeals are liable to be allowed
accordingly.
4 | P a g e
ITA No. 90 & 91/Agr/2025
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The impugned orders each dated 18.01.2024 are set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
(MANISH AGARWAL) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.05.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
5 | P a g e
