Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 31.01.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y.2015-16.The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal:
"1 The Id AO was not justified in passing the order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled.
ITANo.161/Ind/2024 Banvari Lal 2 The Id CIT was not justified in confirming the order, which is bad-in-law. void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. liable to be annulled.
3. The Id CIT was not justified in ex-parte dismissing the appeal and not condoning the delay that a fair and meaningful opportunity was not available to the appellant to the present case. 4 The Id CIT was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 47,60,300/- without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 5 The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal."
2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable and barred by limitation. He has referred to the application for condonation of delay filed before the CIT(A) which was also supported by the affidavit of the assesse and submitted that the assessee explained cause of delay of 126 days in filing the appeal however, the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Thus, Id. AR has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) be condoned as the assesse has explained sufficient reason for the said delay. He has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471. He has thus submitted that the assessee explained cause of delay as the assesse is an agriculturist and belongs to a rural area and therefore, was not familiar with the technology and the order sent Page 2 of 5
ITANo.161/Ind/2024 Banvari Lal by the AO on the Portal of department and e-mail could not be noticed by the assessee. Subsequently, the assesse came to know about the impugned order only on 14th July 2023 in when he logged in to the Income Tax Portal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons explained by the assesse. Thus, Id. AR has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) may be condoned and appeal of the assesse be taken up for hearing on merits.
On the other hand, Ld. DR has not raised any serious objection for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submission as well as careful perused the contents of the application for condonation of delay filed before the CIT(A) for the delay of 126 days. The assessee has stated in the application that the assessee is an and agriculturist and is not familiar with the technology and therefore, was not able to notice the order of the AO which has caused delay of 126 days in filing the appeal. The assesse also filed an affidavit in support of the said application for condonation of delay. Accordingly in the facts and was circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for delay of 126 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
On the merits, Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits. Further the AO has made an addition on account of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee to the tune of Rs.47,60,300/- Page 3 of 5
ITANo.161/Ind/2024 Banvari Lal while passing ex-parte order u/s 144 r.w.section 147 therefore, the matter may be remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after giving one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposit.
On the other hand Ld. DR has fairly submitted that since the assessment order was passed ex-parte and addition was made by the AO for want of explanation on behalf of the assessee of source of the said deposit and further the CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits therefore, the matter may be remanded to the record of the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication.
We have considered the rival submission as well as careful perused the orders of the authorities below. The AO made an addition of Rs.47,60,300/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assesse while passing best judgment assessment u/s 144 r.w.section1 47 of the Act. The said order of the AO was challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A) however, the appeal of the assesse was dismissed in limine being barred by limitation. Therefore, neither at the stage of the assessment proceedings nor at the stage of first appellate proceedings the source of cash deposit in the bank account was examined and considered. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the impugned order of CIT(A) is set aside as the delay in filing the appeal is now condoned by us and consequently the matter is remanded to the record of the ITANo.161/Ind/2024 Banvari Lal jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after verification, examination and consideration of the relevant record/explanation to be filed by the assesse. Needless to say the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing fresh order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.06.2024.