HEMANT BEHL,SOLAN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA 691/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Hemant Behl, an NRI, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed his appeal due to delay without considering the merits. The original assessment by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was based on information that Behl had deposited Rs. 10,00,000 during the demonetization period without filing a return. The CIT(A) dismissed his appeal citing delay, which Behl attributed to his non-receipt of notices and the impact of COVID-19. The Tribunal found that the delay was justified and on examining the bank statements, accepted Behl's claim that the source of the deposit was a prior withdrawal, thus allowing his appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107800 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: KOMAL THAKUR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 144; 142(1); 133(6); 69A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च᭛डीगढ़ ᭠यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च᭛डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH:HYBRID MODE ᮰ी िवᮓम ᳲसह यादव, लेखा सद᭭य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 691/CHD/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hemant Behl Prem Lodge, Dharampur, Solan, Himachal Pradesh- 173205 बनाम The ITO Solan ᭭थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO:CDRPB4205Q अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent िनधाᭅᳯरती कᳱ ओर से/Assessee by : Ms. Komal Thakur, Advocate राज᭭व कᳱ ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07/01/2025 उदघोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/01/2025 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT, Appeal Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Jaipur pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Assessing officer, basis receipt of information that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- during the demonetization period in his account maintained with SBI and since assessee did not file the return of income for the impugned assessment year, issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act to file return of income. However, there was no compliance on part of the assessee and thereafter, after issuing subsequent notices which also remained uncompiled with, the assessment was completed under section 144 wherein the 2 amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was brought to tax as unexplained cash deposit invoking the provisions of Section 69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of delay in filing of the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Against the said order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld AR drawn our reference to the impugned order wherein at para 3, the Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the assessee’s submission seeking condonation of delay and the same reads as under: \"That the assessment in the case of the assessee has been framed vide order dated 24/12/2019 under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the limitation for filling appeal against assessment order has been expired on 23/01/2020. That the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period due to the reason that the assessee is a NRI Non- Resident Indian and at present, he is residing in Italy. That assessee is residing in Italy since 2001 which is also evident from the copy of passport. That due to the illness of his old parents in the year 2016 he came to India and thereafter on 22/08/2017 he went back to Italy. That all the notices regarding assessment proceeding were issued on web portal being the reason he was not aware about the assessment proceedings initiated against him. That he came to know about the passing of the order recently when penalty notice was issued which he received through e-mail. Thereafter he took immediate steps to get the appeal filed. The delay in filing of the appeal is neither intentional nor wilful, but had occasioned due to the reason aforementioned. That no prejudice shall be caused to the department if the delay is condoned whereas the appellant applicant shall suffer irreparable loss. That being the case, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that delay of 349 days in filing of the appeal be condoned and appeal to be heard on merit.\" 5. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasons so given seeking condonation of delay and has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was submitted that the AO was never served any notices and the assessment order as the assessee is an NRI person residing in Italy since 2001 and copy of his passport were also submitted before the lower authorities. It was submitted that besides the fact that the assessee didn’t receive the notices and the assessment order, there was outbreak of Covid which also prevented the assessee in timely filing of the appeal. It was submitted that since the assessee was not in receipt of the order and only came to know of passing of the order when penalty notice was issued, he took the immediate steps to get the appeal filed and therefore there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal which may be condoned and appeal be heard on merit. 3 6. It was further submitted that due to illness of his old parents, the assessee came to India in the year 2016 and had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the SBI Account on 05/11/2016, thereafter the demonetization was announced by the Government on 08/11/2016 and therefore, the assessee was forced to redeposit the amount so withdrawn on 10/11/2016 and in support, copy of the bank statement has been placed on record. It was accordingly submitted that the source of deposit of cash during the demonetization period was out of the cash withdrawal made few days back and which has not been appreciated by the lower authorities. It was submitted that even though the assessee could not appear before the AO as he was not present in the country, however the AO sought information from the bank under section 133(6) and from the perusal of the bank statement itself, it is evident that there is cash withdrawal so made from his account on 05/11/2016 and therefore there is no basis to hold that the amount of cash deposit is out of unexplained sources. It was further submitted that since the bank statement is already on record and it is evident from the said bank statement that there is withdrawal made few days prior to the date of deposit, the matter may be decided instead of remitting the same back to the file of the AO and necessary relief be provided to the assessee. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR is relied on the order of the lower authorities. 8. I have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. Firstly, on condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A), I find that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delayed filing of appeal due to non- receipt of the assessment order as he was not physically present in the country and being based out of Italy since 2001 duly supported by the copy of the passport and due to outbreak of Covid pandemic and the delay so happened is hereby condoned. On merits, on perusal of the bank statement available on record, I find that there is an entry for cash withdrawal of Rs 10 lacs on 05/11/2016 and thereafter, subsequent entry of cash deposit of Rs 10 lacs on 10/11/2016 within a short period of five days of the withdrawal so made and find force in the explanation so furnished on behalf of the assessee that due to announcement of the demonetization of the specified bank 4 notes, the assessee was left with no option but to redeposit the amount so withdrawn earlier and the source of deposit of cash during the demonetization period was thus out of the cash withdrawal made few days back. In light of the same, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby directed to be deleted. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/01/2025 ) Sd/- िवᮓम ᳲसह यादव (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) लेखा सद᭭य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG Date: 09/01/2025 आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/ The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडᭅ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "