Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in food grain trading, deposited specified bank notes (SBN) in his accounts. He failed to file a return in response to a Section 142(1) notice, leading to a best judgment assessment under Section 144. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance and lack of submissions.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a 546-day delay in filing the appeal, imposing a token cost of Rs. 5,000. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary evidence, without expressing an opinion on the merits.
Key Issues
The key issues were the condonation of a significant delay in filing the appeal, the assessee's non-compliance with notices from lower authorities, and the lack of explanation for SBN deposits and cash balances.
Sections Cited
Section 142(1), Section 144, Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 22.07.2023 which has emanated from the order of AO, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), passed u/s 144 of the Act, vide order dated 29.12.2019.
Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is belatedly filed by 546 (five hundred forty-six days). The assessee has prayed for 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 condonation of the delay along with an affidavit and a certificate issued by the CA of the assessee (M/s JRDS and Associates, Chartered accountants, Jammu) dated 22/03/2025, where the Ld. CA Mr. Nitin Gupta (partner), has declared that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) has been passed on 22 July, 2023, and the appeal before the tribunal which was supposed to have been filed within sixty days, could not be filed because he has not accessed the e-proceedings portal of the assessee for a long time and subsequently, when the refunds for following years, were adjusted against outstanding tax demands, the appellate order came to be known and necessary steps were taken for filing this appeal belatedly by 546 days, which the Ld. CA admitted to have arisen at his office, thereby accepting responsibility for such delay. 2.1 He prays for condonation of delay and admission of the appeal to be heard on merits.
The Ld. DR objects to the same considering the long tenure of the delay, but leaves it to the discretion of the Hon’ble Bench.
We have considered the submissions but we are of the opinion that the reasons stated by the Ld. counsel of the assessee, explaining the long delay, is not very convincing to us, but in the interest of justice we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits, but at the same time we are of the opinion that a token cost of Rs.5,000/- ( Rs. Five thousand), is to be imposed on the assessee, payable to 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 “Prime Ministers national Relief Fund”, which is payable within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order, evidence to be produced before the JAO.
The brief facts are that the assesse is engaged in the business of trading of food grains and has deposited SBN (amounting to Rs.9.20 lakhs plus Rs. 92,000/- thousand) in his two bank accounts and in absence of any return in response to notice u/s 142(1), assessment has been completed on a total income of Rs. 17.02 lakhs after considering manual submissions filed by the assessee, including unaudited books of accounts produced.
In first appeal proceedings, there has not been any response to various notices issued and no submissions has been filed by the assessee explaining his case, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.
Before the Tribunal the assessee has taken ten grounds in form 36, disputing the additions made on all the grounds and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and has raised the issue mainly regarding non availability of hearing opportunity before lower authorities.
The Ld. DR referred to the assessment order to submit that though no return was filed the assessee appeared and filed submissions accepting determination of net profits @ 3% of total sales (which the assessee now disputes in the grounds) and the remaining additions on account of FD interest and house rent receipts are fully justified, being undisclosed income. He further submitted that even though cash 4 Assessment Year: 2017-18 book is existing as per submissions, the amount of actual cash balance available with the assessee as on the date of demonetisation is neither stated in the assessment order nor even in the SOF and grounds of appeal, and the same was never examined by the Ld. CIT(A), because of total non-compliance before him and he prays for dismissing the appeal. 8.1 We have heard the rival contentions and the materials on record and we find that the assessee is a defaulter, who refused to file the return in response to notice u/s 142(1) and has filed submissions accepting the rates of profit at a certain percentage ( para – 5 of assessment order ) and has challenged the applicability of the same rates again in this appeal and has not filed any explanation or submissions before the ld. first appellate authority and has not explained the source of deposit of SBN, and has not even quantified the availability of cash balance as on 8th November, 2016, which surprisingly, is not stated anywhere in the SOF or grounds, where the assessee has only raised grievance about non availability of opportunity of hearing . 8.2 As such in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the all the grounds contained in Form 35 on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard and we direct the assessee to furnish all documentary evidence and submission in support of his contention and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings.
5 Assessment Year: 2017-18
We have not expressed any opinion on merits.
All issues are left open.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.