Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, deposited Rs. 11,38,000/- in cash during the demonetization period (FY 2016-17, AY 2017-18). No income return was filed. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were not responded to. Consequently, the AO made an addition of Rs. 11,38,000/- under section 69A of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal to be reasonable and bona fide, thus condoning the delay. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee was not adequately represented before the CIT(A) and decided to provide one more opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
144, 142(1), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH ‘SMC’ AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
Date of Hearing 01.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 01.04.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 11.01.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2017-18 arising out of order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 15.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(3), Mathura.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, the assessee had filed an adjournment petition, which was rejected and the appeal is being decided after hearing the ld. Sr. DR and on the basis of material available on record.
This appeal has been filed on 01.01.2025 with a delay of 296 days.
In this regard, the assessee filed an application for condoning the delay, which is reproduced as under:-
Sub: Application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR! The appellant is preferring appeal before Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra on 1.01.2025 against order ex-parte order dated 11.01.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (the 'CIT (Appeals)*) in the matter of assessment order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the Income tax Officer 1(3)(3), Mathura (now merged with Income tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mathura) (the 'AO') under section 144 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') in the case of appellant for assessment year 2017-18.
The appellate order was passed by learned CIT (Appeals)' on 11.01.2024 and as such the appeal against said order should have been filed on or before 11.03.2024, if reckoned from the date of order, but is being filed on 1.01.2015 and there is thus delay of 296 days.
The 'appellant' most humbly prays that delay of 296 days in filing present appeal be condoned and it be heard on its merit as the 'appellant' was prevented from filing the appeal within time due to non communication of the appellate order dated 11.01.2024 passed by learned 'CIT (Appeals): 4. It is submitted that the 'appollant' could come to know about appellate order dated 11.01.2024 on 28.12.2024 when an Insight letter bearing DIN INSIGHT/VER/02/Service- Letter/2024-25/511612225697001 dated 20.12.2024 was served upon Priti, the sister of 'appellant: Noice dated 11.12.2024 and 22.11.2024 in the mater of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) were attached with said letter dated 20.12.2024. The notice dated 22.11.2024 enclosed with Insight letter dated 20.12.2024 issued with regard to penal proceedings under section 271AAC(1) stated that appellate order was passed by learned 'CIT (Appeals)' on 11.01.2024. The 'appellant' thereafter checked with his counsel who looked into e-filing portal, confirming availability of said appellate order passed ex- parte and advised to prefer appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal. The 'appellant' is accordingly filing appeal within a period of 4 days of acquiring knowledge of passing of appellate order.
Prayer: -In view of the facts stated above, it is humbly submitted that the appeal could not be filed within prescribed time due to no knowledge of order dated 11.01.2024 and hence the delay in filing of appeal be kindly be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits and oblige.”
3.1. The explanation of the assessee has been considered and the same is found to be reasonable and bona fide. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing.
Brief facts of the case: The assessee is an individual. The Assessing Officer had information that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs 11,38,000/- in Syndicate Bank bearing Account No. 88573070000170 during demonetization period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 in the F.Y 2016-17 relevant to A.Y 2017-18. No return of income was filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act to the assessee on 09.03.2018 through electronically as well as manually asking the assessee to file his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on or before 31.03.2018. Further, the Assessing Officer issued another notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire to the assessee on 07.06.2019. In response, the assessee neither appeared before the Assessing Officer nor filed any relevant details.
The Assessing Officer was of the view that non compliance of the notice implies that assessee is deliberately not providing the desired information/details relating to source of cash deposit during demonetization period, hence, there is every reason to believe that cash deposits during demonetization period made by the assessee in above stated bank account are from undisclosed sources. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act in which the addition of Rs.11,38,000/- was made u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits made during the demonetization period.
Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not provided any explanation/supporting documents with regard to the nature and source of these cash deposits.
Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
Having heard both the parties, we are satisfied with the reasons explained by the assessee for his non-representation during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). We are, therefore, of the considered view that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent its case effectively before the ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file to pass an order afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, the assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 1st April, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- [SUNIL KUMAR SINGH] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 01.04.2025. f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT
CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,