Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of NFAC for assessment year 2017-18, which confirmed additions made by the AO. The assessee's appeal before NFAC was dismissed ex-parte due to non-submission of written arguments. There was a delay of 67 days in filing the present appeal before the ITAT, which was attributed to a medical condition of the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause (medical condition). It was noted that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal ex-parte, and while deprecating the assessee's non-cooperation, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to provide another opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to medical reasons, and whether the case should be remitted to the NFAC for fresh consideration after an ex-parte dismissal.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 115BBE, 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
Date of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 31.08.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, under section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.
2. The appellant denies himself to be assessed at Rs.21,07,400/- as against the returned income of NIL for the assessment year 2Oi7-i8on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause in making submissions, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Ramappa Laxman Naduvin, Belgaum Page 2 of 4
4. Grounds on merits of the matter: a. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- being cash deposited into the account during the demonetization period, on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions of Rs. 2,35,000/- being cash deposited into the account during the demonetisation period on the facts and circumstances of the case. c. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 72,400/- being the credits received through banking channels, on the facts and circumstances of the case. d. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- being cash deposited into the bank account, which was prior to the demonetisation period, on the facts and circumstances of the case. e. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A of the act are not attracted and the entire additions are required to be deleted, on the facts and circumstances of the case. f. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A could be invoked only when the money / Bullion / Jewellery etc is not recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee which is not the case in hand on the facts and circumstances of the case. g. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the credits were not unexplained and the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are not attracted, on the facts and circumstances of the case. h. Without prejudice and not conceding that the credits were not unexplained income, the credits into the bank account was not in its entirety income and only a portion of the same, on "an estimate could be treated as income for the year, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 2346 and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernible from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.
Ramappa Laxman Naduvin, Belgaum Page 3 of 4 2. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is with regard to sustaining addition of Rs.10.35 lakhs cash deposited during demonetization period, Rs.10 lakhs cash deposited prior to demonetization period and another addition of Rs.72,400/- being the credit received through banking channels and thereafter, invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.
At the outset, it is noticed that there was a delay of 67 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed the condonation petition stating that assessee has suffered major operation in his right leg in the last 3 years. The assessee was not able to approach the consultant due to this medical condition. Therefore, there was a delay of 67 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. There exists reasonable cause in filing the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 67 days. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 67 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4.1. On merit, the ld. A.R. submitted that the NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte on the reason that assessee has not filed any written submission before it. 4.2 The ld. D.R. supported the order of NFAC. 4.3 It is noted that the grievance of assessee in this appeal is with regard to passing ex-parte order confirming the addition made by ld. AO. The NFAC has dismissed the appeal ex-parte on the reason that assessee has not responded to the various notices issued to the assessee and could not file written submission before NFAC. We strongly deprecate non-cooperation attitude of assessee in non-filing the written submission before NFAC. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to present its case and Ramappa Laxman Naduvin, Belgaum Page 4 of 4 accordingly, issue in dispute is remitted to the file of NFAC for fresh consideration and to decide the same, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.