Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from an order confirming an addition of Rs. 28.79 Lacs made by the AO on account of cash deposit, as the assessee failed to provide any representation. The assessee is in further appeal against the CIT(A)'s order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing principles from Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji&Ors. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to substantiate its case.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposit is justified and whether the assessee had sufficient opportunity to represent its case before the lower authorities.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year:2012-13) Shri Sanjay Kumar Income-tax Officer, C/o Shri Udayvir Singh Ward 1(3)(4), Mathura. बनाम/ Vs. 89, NawadaAnandvan Colony Mathura-281001. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AUPPK-1524-N (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Naveen Gargh, Adv. – Ld. AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of an order passed by earned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] on 17-01-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 27-11-2019. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of cash deposit for Rs.28.79 Lacs since the assessee failed to make any representation therein. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for the same very reasons. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The registry has noted delay of 7 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR. The Ld. AR has also prayed for another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.
Keeping in mind the guiding principles as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji&Ors. (1987; (2) TMI 61 SC), we condone the delay in the appeal and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.