AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The application for condonation of delay of 6 days in filing appeal and appeal filed by the assessee are against order dated 16.01.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ NFAC, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 19.05.2023 of ld. Assessing Officer/ Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income of Rs. 32,23,609/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. As per information received through insight module in High Risk Category that the assessee had deposited cash/credit entries amounting to Rs. 25,92,61,800/- in his account maintained with Bank of Baroda account No. 21310400019637. Proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated. Notice u/s 148A of the Act dated 30.06.2021 after recording reasons that income of Rs. 25,92,61,800/- is chargeable to tax has escaped assessment was issued. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 07.07.2022, notices u/s 142(1) dated 24.01.2023, 08.02.2023, letter dated 22.02.2023 and show cause notice dated 13.05.2023 were issued. The assessee did not avail any opportunity to file response to the above. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 19.05.2023 made addition of Rs. 25,92,61,800/-. On account of unexplained credits entries u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
Against order dated 19.05.2023 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed in limine being barred by limitation
Being aggrieved, the assessee filed present appeal on following grounds:
“The following grounds are taken without prejudice to one another:
1.General Ground: That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 is bad in law, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.
2.Addition of ₹25,92,61,800/-: That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹25,92,61,800/-made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits.
3.Incorrect Facts Considered:That the authorities below failed to appreciate that the actual cash deposits were 6,14,40,000/- as per bank statement and bank certificate, and not ₹25,92,61,800/-.
4.Books of Account Ignored: That the addition has been made without rejecting the books of account as required under section 145 of the Act.
5.Audited Accounts Ignored: That the books were duly audited under section 44AB and no defect was pointed out in audit report (Form 3CB & 3CD).
6.Business Receipts Treated as Unexplained Income: That the cash deposits represent regular business sales duly recorded in books and reflected in the Trading Account and P&L Account.
7.No Opportunity of Proper Reconciliation: That adequate opportunity for reconciliation of deposits was not properly considered.
8.Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: That the impugned order is passed without proper appreciation. of documentary evidences filed during assessment and appellate proceedings.
9.Without Prejudice That the addition, even if sustained, is excessive and unjustified and deserves substantial relief.
10.Right to Add/Amend Grounds: The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”
Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that there is delay of 6 days in filing appeal due to non availability of impugned order from 16.01.2025 to 11.02.2026 because of Technical Glitch on the Income Tax Portal as well as illness and medical treatment of authorized Chartered Accountant, Mr. Varun Taneja, CA application is supported by affidavit and copies of medical documents. The explanation for delay of 6 days in filing appeal supported by affidavit and copies of medical certificate does not smack of mala fides as the assessee has not gained anything by not filing of appeal within period of limitation. Therefore, the delay of 6 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal is condoned.
Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal being barred by limitation vide ex parte order in violation of natural justice.
Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee failed to appear before the ld. Assessing officer and failed to file application for condonation of delay of 6 days in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 16.01.2025 dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. The assessee had not filed application for condonation of delay of 6 days in filing appeal. The assessee failed to appear before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO.
In view of above material facts and in interest of justice, the impugned orders dated 16.01.2025 and dated 19.05.2023, Ld. AO are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. AO for afresh decision in accordance with law and justice after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.
The application for condonation of delay of 6 days is allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.