NAVEET SHARMA,VILL.NAGABAG P.O.BANDROL vs. ITO WARD KULLU, KULLU

आदेश/ORDER

PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT

This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2017-18

against the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A)

NFAC, Delhi. The following grounds have been taken :

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), ex-parte which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. CTT(A) has erred in taw and Facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 30,28,000/- on account of the same being the cash deposits made from undisclosed sources owing to the fact that

ITA 744/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 2

the sources of the deposits of the said amount are genuine and duly explainable.”

this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for

condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay

occurred in filing the present application. The contents of

the application for condonation of delay are reproduced

hereunder :

The Affidavit in this respect from the counsel has been attached at Annexure”

also been filed alongwith the application for condonation of

delay.

ITA 744/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 3 4. From the contents of the application, we are satisfied

that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from

filing the appeal in time. Even otherwise, the assessee

cannot be said to stand to gain anything by deliberately

delaying the filing of the appeal before this Tribunal.

Therefore, the delay of 16 days in filing the present appeal is

condoned.

his return of income on 31.03.2018 for assessment year the

year under consideration, declaring a total taxable income of

Rs.3,84,040/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through

CASS for cash deposited during the demonetization period.

The AO noticed that the assessee had deposited huge cash in

‘old currency notes’ in his bank accounts during the

demonetization period in PNB Mohali in four different bank

accounts which were not disclosed in the return of income

for assessment year 2017-18. The AO issued specific

questionnaire alongwith statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the

Act on the ITBA Portal on 14.08.2019. No submission was

made by the assessee. The AO issued notices u/s 142(1)

online on 27.09.2019, 18.10.2019 and 12.11.2019 to submit

the requisite replies. In response, the counsel of the

ITA 744/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 4 assessee CIT(A) Krishan Joshi filed incomplete reply on

16.11.2019. After that, assessee was again issued Show

Cause Notice dated 29.11.2019. In response, the counsel of

the assessee filed reply but the AO was not satisfied with the

reply of the assessee, therefore, AO made addition of

Rs.30,28,000/- u/s 69A of the Act to the total income of the

assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 and taxed the

same @ 60% u/s 115BBE of the Act.

ld. CIT(A) issued various notices through ITBA Portal fixing

the hearings on 24.01.2021, 06.07.2022, 10.07.2023,

11.08.2023 and 29.08.2023, but no submissions were

uploaded by the assessee on ITBA Portal. Accordingly,

considering the submissions of the assessee as given in the

Statement of Facts, the ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and

confirmed the addition of Rs.30,28,000/- made by the

Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits made from

undisclosed sources.

the material available on record. It is a fact that the notices

ITA 744/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 5 were issued on the ITBA Portal. Merely uploading of

information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax

Portal is not an effective service of notice as per the

provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. The

matter now stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble

jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘Munjal BSU Centre

of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Ludhiana through its

authorized signatory Shri Bharat Goyal Vs Commissioner of

Income Tax (E), Chandigarh’, in CWP 21028-2023 (O&M),

wherein, vide order dated 04.03.2024, their Lordships have

held that the provisions of Section 282(1) of the Income Tax

Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, envisage

that it is essential that before any action is taken, a

communication of the notice must be in terms of these

provisions; that these provisions do not make mention of

communication to be “deemed” by placing the notice on the

e-portal of the Department; that an pragmatic view has

always to be adopted in these circumstances; that an

individual or a company is not expected to keep the e-portal

of the Department open all the times so as to have knowledge

of what the Department is supposed to be doing with regard

to the submissions of forms, etc.; and that the principles of

ITA 744/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 6

natural justice are inherent in the Income Tax provisions

and the same are required to be necessarily followed.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the file is restored to

the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in

accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of

being heard to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall

cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A).

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 01.07.2024.

Sd/- Sd/-

(KRINWANT SAHAY) (A.D.JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar