Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 21.03.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : Condonation of Delay : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057910153(1) dated 13.11.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 22.03.2022 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 with the delay Sreepada Venkatasubbamma, A chanta of 17 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay, submitting that the assessee suffered from severe joint pains and typhoid fever and was under treatment and bed rest as advised by the doctor during the period from 05.01.2024 to 24.01.2024. The assessee further submitted that the assessee could not attend to any other affairs during this period and as soon as the condition improved, the assessee took necessary steps for filing the appeal and could file the appeal before the Tribunal only on 29.01.2024 with the delay of 17 days. The assessee produced medical certificate as evidence and submitted that the reasons for the filing the appeal belatedly was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The assessee, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice.
2. We have gone through the condonation petition and medical certificate produced by the assessee. The appeal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 13.11.2023 ought to have been filed before the Tribunal on or before 12.01.2024, but the assessee could file appeal only on 29.01.2024, resulting in a delay of 17 days due to the reasons mentioned in the petition for condonation of delay. We, find there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the assessee to file appeal belatedly. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.
Sreepada Venkatasubbamma, A chanta
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, and has not filed any return of income for the A.Y.2013-14. The assessee had deposited cash of Rs.1,87,73,000/- in her savings bank account. After issuing statutory notices u/s 147 and 148 of the Act, assessment in the case of the assessee was completed and the Assessing Officer (AO) passed assessment order u/s 144 of the Act dated 22.03.2022, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,87,73,000/ as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act as the assessee has not offered for taxation purpose.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte observing that there is no material on record to warrant interference in the order of the AO as the assessee failed to produce any submissions, information or documents during appeal proceedings except Form 35 and copy of the assessment order dated 22.03.2022 filed by the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal :
The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte.
Sreepada Venkatasubbamma, A chanta
3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as invalid and ought to have quashed the consequent reassessment proceedings as void-ab-initio.
4. Without prejudice to Ground No.2 and Ground No.3, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have directed the assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs.1,87,73,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act towards alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts. 5. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing. 5. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and house wife. The assessee had made deposits in her bank account, the source being the sale proceeds received on sale of agricultural lands. The assessee did not file her return of income as her income is below the limit and gain on sale of agricultural lands is exempt from tax. The Ld.AR, further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and ought to have directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.1,87,73,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act towards alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee has sources for cash deposits in bank account. The Ld.AR, therefore, pleaded for affording an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate assessee’s case with credible material evidences available in the interest of justice, otherwise, the assessee would suffer a great financial loss.
Sreepada Venkatasubbamma, A chanta
Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee was given enough opportunities before the Ld.CIT(A), but the assessee neither appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) nor filed any submissions, information or documents in support of the grounds raised before the Ld.CIT(A). She, therefore, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. She, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, it is undisputed fact that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.1,87,73,000/- in her savings bank account, out of the sale proceeds received from sale of agricultural lands. The Ld.AR contended that the revenue authorities are not justified in making and sustaining the addition of Rs.1,87,73,000/- and pleaded for giving an opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A) to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities with the credible material evidences available, otherwise, the assessee would suffer a great financial loss. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice and pass order after Sreepada Venkatasubbamma, A chanta examination of the evidences produced by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued and cooperate with the revenue authorities during the proceedings.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th March, 2024. (एस बालाकृष्णन) (दुव्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 26.03.2024 L.Rama, SPS