KANDASAMY PRABHAKARAN,ATTUR vs. ITO WARD1(6), SALEM

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054555995 (1) dated 24.07.2023. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(6), Salem for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 26.11.2019.

It is noticed that this appeal is barred by limitation by 160 days. The facts of the case are that the order by CIT(A)-NFAC is dated 24.07.2023. As per Form 36, the assessee has received this order on 24.07.2023 and appeal should have been filed on or before 22.09.2023 but appeal was actually filed on 29.02.2024 and thereby, there is a delay of 160 days. The assessee filed condonation petition along with affidavit for condoning the delay of 160 days stating the following reason:- “The above delay occurred due to the following reasons A) I have studies only upto 9th Standard and I was doing business in milk products as an agent for Hatsun Agro Product Limited, V. Kootroad, Aattu Pannai, Periyeri-post, Attur Taluk, Salem – 636112. B) Due to lack of education and for want of proper professional guidance the income tax assessment for the assessment year 2017-18 was completed u/s 144 of the Act. C) Further I was also suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis (An autoimmune inflammatory disease that affects the joints) D) For filing the appeal I took the services of CA T.S. Lakshmivenkataraman, Salem. The distance between Attur to Salem is 50 Kms and this factor also contributed in the delay in filing the appeal.”

At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee drew our attention to Ground No.7, which reads as under:- “7. On the facts and circumstances of the case the first appellate authority is not justified in passing a cryptic order without discussing about the various case laws submitted before him in respect of business receipts which could not be brought within the ambit of section 69A r.w.s.115BBE.”

After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts of the assessee, we noted that the order of CIT(A)-NFAC is non- speaking and even the submissions although reproduced in the order of CIT(A)-NFAC from pages 3 to 6 running into four pages, has not at all considered. Without speaking anything on merits on the issue of assessment of cash deposit of Rs.18,13,400/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act by the AO and confirmed by - 4 - CIT(A)-NFAC, we set aside the order of CIT(A)-NFAC and remand the issue back to the file of the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.