AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
These two appeals by the assessee are preferred against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, dated 26.06.2025 & 15.07.2025 arising out of the assessment orders dated 24.12.2019 passed by the ITO, Ward-3, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2012-13 & dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Assessment Unit (‘the AO’) under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14.
Since the above captioned appeals were heard together and facts in issues are identical, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.5162/Del/2025 are as under :
“1.That the order of Id CIT A, NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing of appeal without considering the facts of case and submissions made by the appellant is bad in the eyes of law. That the Id CIT A, NFAC, Delhi has also erred in not considering the legal grounds regarding reopening the assessment.
2.That the assessment made by the Id A O, NFAC, Delhi without issue notice u/s 148 of the Act is invalid ab initio. The notice issued u/s 148 dt 30-03-2021 by the Id ITO W-1, Panipat is without jurisdiction.
3.That the notice issued u/s 148 dt 30-03-2021 for the A Y 2013-14 is time barred as the time to issue notice for the said A Y had already expired on dt 31-03-2020.
4.That the assessment made by the Id A O, NFAC, Delhi is based on wrong facts. The assessment was made on account of cash deposited Rs 33382700/- into bank whereas the appellant not deposited such amount into bank during the said A Y 2013-14.
5.That the appellant was not provided proper opportunity of being heard.
6.That the copy of reasons recorded was not provided to the appellant by the Id ITO-W-1, Panipat before making the assessment.
7.That the Id A O, NFAC, Delhi has erred in making the addition of Rs.3,33,82,700/- u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE which are not applicable in the case of appellant for the said A Y.
8.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, both the lower authorities have erred on facts and in law in making/ confirming the addition of Rs.3,33,82,700/- on wrong facts in the income of appellant whereas the appellant deposited only Rs.1,29,95,700/- in the bank account during the FY 2012-13 instead of Rs.3,33,82,700/-.
9.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id A O, NFAC, Delhi has erred in making the addition of Rs.3,33,82,700/- in the income of appellant on account of cash deposited in bank whereas only Rs.1,29,95,700/- was deposited in the bank of appellant during the said FY 2012-13.
10.That the appellant hereby requests to accept the appeal, quash the orders of both the lower authorities and oblige.
11.That the appellant craves to add, forego, amend, vary, delete any of the grounds of appeal before disposal of this appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a farmer having agriculture income and income from other sources i.e. S/B interest etc. During the F.Y. 2011-12, the parents of the assessee sold their ancestral agriculture land and deposited the amount of sales consideration in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee and his family made the provision to purchase another agriculture land. The case of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and AY 2012-13 was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by the learned AO on account of cash deposited into bank and the assessment was finalized by making an addition of Rs.2,14,67,000/- in the income of assessee for AY 2012-13 and of Rs 3,33,82,700/- for AY 2013-14. Aggrieved, assessee was in appeal before the CIT(A), learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding that assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposit as discussed in detailed in the assessment order.
Aggrieved, assessee before us.
At the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the requisite documents and information were filed during the course of assessment. The assessee sought some more time to submit the balance documents and information but the learned AO finalized the case without giving the sufficient time of being heard. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as the CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 559 days in filing appeal before him. The ld AR prayed for restoration of appeal before the CIT(A).
Per contra, learned DR did not raise any serious objection and relied upon the order of authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the light of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) (supra), which mandated that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay and accordingly condone the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A). In such facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) should adjudicate the issues involved in the case afresh. The CIT(A) is directed to accord three effective opportunities to the assessee and assessee is likewise directed to avail the opportunities and submit documents/evidence as required by the CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is decided in aforesaid terms.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.5161/Del/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No. 5161/DEL/2025 for A.Y. 2012-13 :
It is submitted by the ld AR that the facts in the instant case are identical to the facts of the case decided above. The ld DR did not raise any objections. The decision therefore in ITA No.5162/Del/2025 will apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the instant case.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.5161 & 5162/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.