BIJAY KUMAR SWAIN, CUTTACK V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

ITA 118/CTK/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2290 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE Bijay Kumar Swain, M/s. Jholei Swain & Sons, Khajoor Godown, Chhatra Bazar, Fruit Market, Cuttack PAN/GIR No (Appellant Per R.K.Panda, Vice President This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 13/10150448 2. The appeal is time barred by 17 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by to his high blood pressure and prolonged illness, he was advised by the doctor to take one month rest. Therefore, there was IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI R.K.PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.118/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bijay Kumar Swain, M/s. Jholei Swain & Sons, Khajoor Godown, Chhatra Bazar, Fruit Market, Cuttack Vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Lalatendu Sahu, CA Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 17/0 Date of Pronouncement : 17/0 O R D E R Per R.K.Panda, Vice President This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 19.12.2023 in Appeal No. relating to the assessment year 2013-14. The appeal is time barred by 17 days. The assessee has filed petition supported by an affidavit, inter alia, stating that due his high blood pressure and prolonged illness, he was advised by the doctor to take one month rest. Therefore, there was Page1 | 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT R.K.PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Respondent) Lalatendu Sahu, CA : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR 05/2024 /05/2024 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld in Appeal No.NFAC/2012- 14. The appeal is time barred by 17 days. The assessee has filed a , inter alia, stating that due his high blood pressure and prolonged illness, he was advised by the a delay of 17 days in ITA No.118/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Page2 | 5 filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, which was not intentional. Ld Sr DR did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. 3. After going through the condonation petition, we find that the assessee has a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganga Sahai Ram Swarup and another vs. ITAT, 271 ITR 512 (All) held that the delay of short period should be condoned because the assessee was not going to gain anything out of it. We, therefore, condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Although a number of grounds have been raised, however, all these relate to the exparte order of ld CIT(A), NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.60,54,007/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69A of the I.T.Act, 1961 being the cash deposit in the bank account. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is a non-filer of income tax return. It was observed from the individual transaction statement (ITS) available with the department that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.60,54,007/- in his Saving Bank account and earned interest income of Rs.11,97,600/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons, reopened the case of the assessee u/s.147 of the Act and thereafter issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 31.3.2021. Since the ITA No.118/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Page3 | 5 assessee did not file any return in response to the same and did not respond to the subsequent notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act asking the assessee to explain as to why the assessment should not be completed u/s.144 of the Act by making the addition of the same. Thereafter, the assessee filed the return of income on 12.3.2022 i.e. at the fag end of the time limit declaring total income Rs.4,08,200/-. 6. Since the assessee thereafter did not file any response to the subsequent notice issued, the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s.147/144B of the Act made addition of Rs.64,62,210/- u/s,. \69A being the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained. 7. Since the assessee did not appear before the ld CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the ld CIT(A) NFAC in the exparte order passed sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to death of the mother of the assessee and subsequent sickness of the assessee who is a senior citizen, the assesse could not produce the necessary evidences, leading to these unfortunate events. He submitted that if an opportunity is ITA No.118/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Page4 | 5 granted, the assessee would be in a position to file the requisite details before the lower authorities to substantiate his case. 10. On the other hand, ld Sr DR strongly opposed submission of ld A.R. of the assessee and submitted that despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee did not bother to file necessary evidence before the ld CIT(A) and even before the AO. He accordingly submitted that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld CIT(A) should be upheld. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. On perusal of the assessment order, we find that due to non-submission of details to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding the source of cash deposits in the Saving Bank, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.64,62,210/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. We find that despite number of opportunities granted by the ld CIT(A), the assessee did not make any submission for which the ld CIT(A) was constrained to pass the exparte order. It is the submission of ld AR that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to give one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submission on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under ITA No.118/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Page5 | 5 any pretext failing which, the ld CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing today i.e. on 17/05/2024. Sd/- sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (R.K.PANDA) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT Cuttack; Dated 17/05/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Bijay Kumar Swain, M/s. Jholei Swain & Sons, Khajoor Godown, Chhatra Bazar, Fruit Market, Cuttack 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy//