Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER
] ] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Chirag Balkrishna Patel Income Tax Officer, 15, Adarsh Society, Vs Ward-1, Godhra Vadodara Road, (previous, ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Halol, 389350 Vadodra) Gujarat PAN: BUTPP1753 K अपीलाथ�/ (Appellant) �� यथ�/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jigar Adhiyaru, AR Revenue by : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 16/05/2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R
PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 31-10-2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – [National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)] (hereinafter referred as “CIT(A)”) which was preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as “the AO”) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”).
Assessee has taken following Grounds of the appeal before us:
Chirag Balkrishna Patel. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18
2 1. The ld. CIT(A) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law has grossly erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal. 2. The ld. CIT(A) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law has grossly erred as he has not decided the grounds of appeal raised before him on merit.
3. The ld. CIT(A) and ld. AO on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law has grossly erred in passing the Assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act without issuing the proper/appropriate Show cause notice. The addition made by the ld. AO in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act without issuing the proper/appropriate show cause notice is illegal and bad in law and is not sustainable as such additions have been made without giving appropriate opportunity of being heard to the appellant during the course of assessment proceeding and hence there is gross violation of natural justice and such assessment order as passed by the ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act is bad in law ab initio and liable to be quashed.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 37,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act without considering the facts and merit of the case and prays your honour to kindly delete the same.
5. Kindly stay the demand.
6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary.
Facts of the Case:
The appellant is an individual who, filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 declaring income of Rs. 5,13,218. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS because of deposit of cash amounting to Rs. 37,00,000/- in the bank account of the assessee.
During the course of assessment, the assessee furnished the details like monthly cash sales and cash deposit. Dissatisfied with the explanation
Chirag Balkrishna Patel. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18
3 offered by the assessee, the AO added the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs.37,00,000/- to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act.
4.1. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). The appeal was not filed within the prescribed time limit and there was a delay of 43 days in filing the appeal. Since delay was not properly explained by the assessee with a sufficiently reasonable cause, CIT(A) did not condone the delay. Since the delay was not condoned the appeal was admitted by the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Now the assessee is before us against the order of CIT(A). There is a delay of 45 days in filing appeal before us.
On Condonation of Delay
The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate but due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances. The counsel submitted that the appellant was undergoing severe health issues, as evidenced by medical certificates, and was also facing a financial crisis that hindered timely filing of the appeal.
It was further contended that a meritorious case should not be thrown out on technical grounds and requested for condonation of delay and remand of the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
Considering the circumstances, specifically relating to the medical and financial crisis claims of the appellant, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) did not oppose the condonation of delay.
Chirag Balkrishna Patel. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18
4 9 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The reasons for the delay, as stated by the appellant, are illness and financial difficulties, which are supported by documentary evidence.
It is a settled legal principle that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal and justice-oriented approach should be adopted, especially when the delay is due to unavoidable circumstances. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] has emphasized that substantial justice should not be defeated on technical grounds and that a pragmatic approach should be taken in such cases.
In the present case, we find that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to genuine reasons which were beyond the control of the appellant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us.
Since the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the matter on merits, we deem it fit to refer the matter back to CIT(A) to decide on merit.
In view of the foregoing, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. We also set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the appellant for being heard.
Chirag Balkrishna Patel. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18
5 14. The appellant is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the CIT(A) and comply with the necessary requirements as stipulated under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31 May, 2024 at Ahmedabad.