VINODKUMAR DHANULALJI SAWJI,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1 , JALNA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 17.11.2023 for the assessment year 2013-14.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 08.08.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,92,620/-. The said return of income was processed by the CPC u/s.143(1) accepting the returned income. Subsequently, based on the information received From ACIT, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs.29,03,100/- in the account held with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., the Assessing Officer
2 ITA No.1414/PUN/2024
(AO) formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 was issued to the appellant and served upon the appellant. The appellant filed the return of income in response to notice u/s.148. Against the said return of income, the AO completed the assessment vide order dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.31,34,170/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of the said cash deposit after reducing the amount declared under Income Declaration Scheme (IDS), 2016 of Rs.61,547/-, the balance amount of Rs.28,41,551/- was added as unexplained cash, rejecting the contention of the appellant that the net income of the appellant was offered under IDS 2016.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the appellant had not furnished the details of nature of business activity carried on by him nor explained the sources for the cash deposit. It was further held that nowhere appellant had explained the use of cash withdrawals made from the bank account.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
At the outset, I find that the appeal is time barred by 164 days in filing the appeal. The appellant had filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay by stating that the appellant was undergoing treatment for Right Radial Artery Coronary treatment in Manik Hospital & Research Centre, Aurangabad. The appellant could not pursue the matter before the Tribunal which resulted in filing of the appeal with delay. Therefore, there is reasonable and sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the time limit. The ld. Sr. DR
3 ITA No.1414/PUN/2024
has no serious objection to condone the delay. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay as there is no material on record to show that the appellant is guilty of latches or negligence or deliberately delayed the filing of the appeal. I therefore condone the delay of 164 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The ld. Authorised Representative submits that the assessment order is barred by limitation. It is submitted that the notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.03.2021 and the assessment order was passed on 31.03.2022. It is submitted that the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year had expired on 30.03.2020. Since the notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.03.2021, the assessment proceedings were barred by limitation.
On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.
I heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. I find that since the Ground of appeal No.2 goes to the very root of the matter I shall take up the Ground of appeal No.2 first. The provisions of section 149 as that stood at relevant time prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 reads as under : “Time limit for notice (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,—
(a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment
4 ITA No.1414/PUN/2024
amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year; (c) if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment.”
The present case falls in clause (b) of the above section and thus the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year have elapsed on 31.03.2020. Therefore, no notice u/s.148 can be issued u/s.148 beyond 31.03.2020. Since in the present case, the notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.03.2021, the same is barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment made pursuant to issue of notice u/s.148 is invalid and hereby quashed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 29th day of August, 2024.
Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 29th August, 2024. Satish
आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
