TARIGONDA SHAVATHALI KHAN,KALAKADA vs. ITO., WARD NO-1(1), TIRUPATHI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23/11/2023 of the learned CIT (A) NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y. 2017-18.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the learned CIT(A)NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.1,50,03,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A being unexplained cash deposits and Rs.1,67,534/-towards interest income as “income from other sources”.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 6.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.7,86,700/-. On the basis of information available with the Department under the category of High Risk CRIU/VRU information for the A.Y 2016-17, proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act were initiated after recording reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued to the assessee after obtaining necessary sanction u/s 151 of the Act from the competent authority. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee. However, despite number of opportunities granted, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee for which the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act.

On perusal of the e-filing record, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee is a regular filer of income tax upto A.Y 2021-22. Despite having got the e-filing portal, the assessee deliberately did not furnish the details. On verification of the Bank details shown in the ITR, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has failed to declare the details of cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,50,03,000/- during the demonetization period in his Bank Account No.081711100000645 maintained with Andhra Bank. In absence of any explanation from the side of the assessee to explain the source of such cash deposits, the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE made addition to the total income of the assessee.

Similarly, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is in receipt of interest of Rs.1,66,350/- and Rs.1,004/- from Essar Oil Ltd and Andhra Bank respectively. However, the assessee has not declared the same in his return of income. The Assessing Officer thereafter made addition of the same as income from other sources which is under reported. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,59,56,053/-.

Since there was a delay of 75 days in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the learned CIT (A) NFAC rejected the additional evidences filed before him and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on account of delay in filing of the appeal.

Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that due to the death of the Accountant of the assessee during the proceedings and the continuous ill health of the assessee, there was a delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT (A) NFAC. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT (A) NFAC should be condoned and this appeal should be decided on merit.

The learned DR, on the other hand, drew the attention of the Bench to Para 3 of the order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC which reads as under:

Referring to the above, the learned DR submitted that the learned CIT (A) NFAC has given justifiable reasons for not condoning the delay, therefore, the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the AO in the instant case determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,59,56,053/- as against the returned income of Rs.7,86,700/- on the ground that there was no compliance to the statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) after the case of the assessee was reopened and the assessee did not produce any evidence to substantiate the nature and source of the cash deposits of Rs.1,50,03,000/- made in his bank account during the demonetization period. Similarly, the assessee has not disclosed the interest income of Rs.1,66,350/- received from Essar Oil Ltd and Rs.1004/- from Andhra Bank. We find the assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT (A) NFAC with a delay of 75 days. It was explained before the learned CIT (A) NFAC that the delay was on account of death of the Accountant during the course of proceedings and severe health grounds of his family, no knowledge of appeal process and gathering information from multiple sources took time. We find the learned CIT (A) NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the explanation given by the assessee for condonation of delay is not acceptable.