OTIBAI,DHAR vs. ITO , DHAR

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 154 days in filing of this appeal before this Tribunal. The application for condonation that in Form 35 it was specifically mentioned that communication should not be sent to e-mail however all notices of hearing were sent on e-mail which prevented the assessee from appearing before Ld. CIT(A) and assessee came to know about the impugned order on a later date. This being the bonafide reason delay, if any in filing the appeal may please be condoned. Ld. Departmental Representative opposed the request. I however considering the reasonable cause mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and also citing the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition V/s Mst. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353 wherein the Hon’ble court has laid down that in such matters liberal approach should be adopted as ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and considering the ratio of said Hon’ble Court’s judgment laid down that substantial justice deserves to be preferred, I hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication on merits.

Assessee has raised raised following grounds of appeal:

At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee cultivates Rabi and Khariff in 4.025 ha of irrigated agriculture land at village Ringnod and the alleged deposits are mainly from the agriculture produce and also there are regular cash withdrawals which have also been utilized for making further deposits. However Ld. Counsel for the assessee was fair enough to accept that the assessee have not made any compliance before the lower authorities and therefore prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of jurisdictional A.O for carrying out necessary adjudication for the issue of alleged cash deposit at Rs.11,25,350/- after providing opportunity to the assessee to furnish necessary evidence. request.

I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. The only issue is that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.11,25,349/- in his bank account, which resulted in the impugned addition. Though Ld. Counsel for the assessee has claimed that assessee is an agriculturist and sale proceeds from agriculture produce has been utilized for making alleged deposits, however considering the fact that legal heir of the deceased assessee did not appear before both the lower authorities and there being no opportunity with the revenue authorities to verify the said claim. I being fair to both the parties and in the interest of justice restore the issue raised on merits before me regarding source of cash deposit at Rs.11,25,350/- to the file of jurisdictional A.O who shall provide reasonable opportunity to the legal heir of the assessee to furnish necessary details of having agriculture income and other source for alleged cash deposit so that Ld. A.O can decide the issue in accordance with law. The legal heir of the assessee is also directed to remain vigilant in appearing unless warranted for reasonable cause. Thus Grounds of appeal No.1 to 3 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.