Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 124 days due to bonafide reasons. The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee's income based on unexplained cash deposits during demonetization and salary income, as the assessee did not file a return of income or provide explanations.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained credits and salary income, and the CIT(A) confirmed the ex-parte assessment, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a return of income before the assessment was completed.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable and whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are justified without considering the return filed by the assessee.
Sections Cited
142(1), 144, 139(1), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi&
Year: 2017-18 K. Selvaraj, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No. 147/28B, Ganthi Nagar, Income Tax, Kirshnagiri 635 001. Circle 1, [PAN: AANPS0770Q] Hosur. (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCA ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18 challenging exparte order of the ld. CIT(A).
We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 124 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 124 days is condoned.
At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer received information that the assessee had deposited cash in the bank accounts during demonetization period, the details of said bank deposits are reflected in para 4 of the assessment order. According to the Assessing Officer, the total credit as per all bank statements are ₹.31,85,216/- against which the total cash deposits during demonetization period [09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016] is ₹.3,45,000/- and treated other amounts of ₹.3,47,310/- [₹.6,92,310–3,45,000] as income of the assessee since the assessee has not given any explanation. Further, out of the credits of ₹.24,92,906/-, ₹.13,09,929/- were found by the Assessing Officer in respect of the salary of the assessee and the balance amount of ₹.11,82,977/- remained unexplained. Moreover, the Assessing Officer at para 8 of the assessment order noted that the assessee is in receipt of salary of ₹.17,84,831/- from the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Government of Tamil Nadu for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 and since the assessee has not filed his return of income or replied to the notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the entire sum was brought to tax and completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act dated 27.09.2019. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same.
The ld. AR Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCA argued that the Assessing Officer ought to have taken cognizance of the return of income filed by the assessee on 26.09.2019 before the completion of assessment on 27.09.2019. He further submits that due to the circumstances beyond his control, the assessee could not file explanation/documentary evidence in support of his claim. The ld. AR prayed to afford an opportunity to the assessee as the assessee is ready to prosecute its case before the Assessing Officer without fail. Further, he submits that the assessee is ready with all documentary evidences in support of its claim and requested to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.
The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to page 3 of the impugned order and argues that the ld. CIT(A) has given ample of opportunities to the assessee, but, the assessee failed to upload his explanation substantiate his claims.
After hearing both the parties, we find the Assessing Officer made various additions under section 69A of the Act, which requires assistance; undoubtedly, there was no assistance from the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the entire salary income on the ground that the assessee has not filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the ld. AR has contended that the assessee filed his return of income before completing the assessment. Admittedly, as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR, the assessee could not avail the opportunities afforded by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) in furnishing required details relevant to the addition made therein, which clearly establishes that there is no assistance to the assessee the grounds raised before us. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, before the Assessing Officer. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 27th November, 2024 at Chennai.