VEDRE PRANATHIE,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(4), HYDERABAD

At the outset, we find that the Registry has noticed delay of 46 days in the appeal filed by the assessee. The learned Counsel for the assessee explained that although the Ld.CIT(A) passed order on 18.06.2024, the appellant has received the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) on 03.09.2024 and if we

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and not filed her return of income for the A.Y.2017- 18 u/s 139(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 09.03.2018 and called upon the assessee to prepare a true and correct return of income, in respect of which the assessee is assessable under the Act. The assessee did not file her return of income in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act, on the basis of material available on record and made additions of Rs.99,65,478/-, towards credits including cash deposited into bank account held with Kotak Mahindra Bank

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and such appeal has been filed with the delay of 42 days. The assessee had also explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, without condoning the delay and also upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposited u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine for non filing appeal on or before the due date, even though the appellant had explained the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Further, the Ld.CIT(A) had also not discussed the issue involved in the appeal on merits. Therefore, he submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) may be condoned and the issue may be set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits.

The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the assessee could not explain the reasons for the delay in fling the appeal. Further, the assessee has not explained the sources for cash deposited even before the Assessing Officer / Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A), after

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there is delay of 42 days in the appeal filed by the assessee before the first appellate authority. The assessee had explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal in Column 15 of Form No.35 and as per the reasons given by the assessee, she was under the impression that the Assessing Officer would consider the explanation furnished with regard to cash deposited and there is no further action required in this connection. However, the assessee after noticing the fact that she had not received any order from the Assessing Officer, approached her auditor and found that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order and uploaded in the ITBA portal. Therefore, immediately taken steps to file appeal, which caused delay of 42 days. However, the said delay is neither intentional nor wanton of any undue benefit. The Ld.CIT(A) could not find any merit in the reasons given by the appellant for not filing the appeal in time and dismissed the appeal. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in one line finding, although the reasons given by the appellant appears to be bonafide and reasonable. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, without discussing the issues on merits, towards additions made u/s 69A of the Act.

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