AHIBARAN,HARDOI vs. ITO-*3(2), HARDOI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 354/LKW/2023Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 February 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the First Appellate Authority, directing them to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. This was based on the assessee's submission of personal hardship (death of wife) causing the delay and an undertaking to cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 30.00 lacs in a bank during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte due to no reply from the assessee. The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed for being belated by 9 months and 26 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of limitation without considering the reasons for delay and the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma
Hearing: 23/01/2024Pronounced: 29/02/2024

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Ys. 2017-18 Ahibaran, Vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Madhiya Jafar Pur Parsola, Income Tax Office, Hardoi-241301 Nagheta Road, Hardoi-241001 PAN AMRPA 2447C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Saurabh Gupta, CA Respondent by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT( DR) Date of hearing 23/01/2024 Date of pronouncement 29/02/2024 O R D E R

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of Rs.30.00 lacs in Gramin Bank of Aryavart, Chhibramau, Hardoi during the demonetization period i.e. between 09.11.2016 and 30.12.2016. The statutory notices were issued from time to time requiring the assessee to submit the relevant details. However, since no reply was forthcoming from the part of the assessee, the AO proceeded to invoke the provisions of Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) and completed the assessment at an income of Rs.39,94,590/-.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the addition. However, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the NFAC as the appeal had been filed belatedly by 9 months and 26 days and no delay condonation application had been filed before the ld. First Appellate Authority. Thus, the appeal came to be dismissed as unadmitted.

4.

Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ex- parte Appellate Order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) NFAC was passed without providing proper opportunity to the appellant, which is against the principles of natural justice and therefore, the same is void ab- initio and bad in law 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not condoning the delay attributable to the filing of appeal.

3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has failed to appreciate the statement of facts and grounds of appeal

filed by the appellant and rejecting the appeal only on the grounds of limitation.

4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs 39,94,591/- by treating the deposits in bank accounts as Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without even adjudicating the same.

5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not appreciating the fact that the bank accounts mentioned by the Ld Assessing Officer in the assessment order do not relate to the appellant, making the entire additions and the assessment order infructuous, which renders the entire assessment null and void.

6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the hearing.”

5.

The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that it was true that the appeal had been filed belatedly before the NFAC but the reason for such delay was death of the wife of the assessee which prevented him from taking proper cause of action in this regard. The ld. Authorized Representative stated at Bar that the fact of death of assessee’s wife had disturbed the assessee to the extent that he was unable to look after the day to day affairs of his business. The ld. A.R. also gave an undertaking that if the matter was restored to the NFAC, the assessee shall fully cooperate during the course of First Appellate proceedings as and when so directed by the NFAC.

6.

Per contra, the ld. Senior D.R. opposed the prayer of the assessee.

7.

I have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. Keeping in mind, the statement of the ld. Authorized Representative at the Bar and the undertaking given by him in this regard, I deem it appropriate to restore the file to the Office of the ld. First Appellate Authority and direct the ld. First Appellate Authority to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, after giving proper opportunity to the assessee in this regard.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →