Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 27.09.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18.
Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :
The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of trading in Tyres and Tubes in the name and style of “M/s. AB Tyres’. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 26.09.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.9,45,100/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 19.12.2019 passed u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’) after making addition of Rs.67,40,500/- being cash deposited in the specified bank notes during the demonetization period as unexplained money. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant was asked to produce certain evidence in the form of Sales Register, Purchase Register, Stock Register, Cash Book, Ledger Bills and vouchers etc. to explain the source of cash deposited in the Mahesh Urban Cooperative Bank of Rs.67,40,500/-. Since the assessee had not complied with the hearing notice, the AO had proceeded ahead framing the assessment by bringing to tax the cash deposited in the bank account as unexplained money of the assessee.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC contending that the assessment order is passed against the principles of natural justice and no reasonable opportunity was given to substantiate the source for cash deposits made. It was further contended that the notice of hearing was issued after the lapse of hearing date. The assessee also contended that if an opportunity was given, he was able to substantiate the source for cash deposits made. However, the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to file any documentary evidences in support of the source for cash deposits made except making a submission that cash was deposited out of regular business proceeds.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
At the outset, the present appeal is filed before this Tribunal with a delay of 79 days. The appellant has filed a petition praying for condonation of delay stating that the assessment order was served on the previous Tax Consultant who failed to communicate the order to the appellant. The appellant had come to know about the order only after the Department sent notice for recovery of the tax demand. It is further submitted that the details could not be filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC as the hearing notices were not served on the appellant.
On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR had made no submission controverting the submissions made in the petition.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. Sr. DR had not controverted the averments made in the petition praying for condonation of delay. Further, keeping in view of the well settled position of law that the date of knowledge of the order alone has to be reckoned for the purpose of computing the limitation period, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay of 79 days. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
On merits, it is submitted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not given reasonable opportunity to substantiate the source for cash deposits made.
Therefore, the matter be remanded to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo disposal for which the ld. DR has no serious objection. From the perusal of the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, it is not clear, whether reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee to substantiate the source for cash deposits made during the demonetization period. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remission to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo disposal of appeal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 15th day of May, 2024.