ALAGU YADAV, FAIZABAD V. ITO-1, Faizabad, Faizabad

ITA 196/LKW/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Algu Yadav, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal-1, Lucknow, which dismissed his appeal in limine due to non-compliance. The original assessment was based on a cash deposit of Rs.15,96,000 in the assessee's bank account, which was not explained despite notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144, adding the amount to the assessee's income. The Tribunal found that the assessee, being illiterate and possibly lacking legal assistance, deserved another opportunity to explain the source of the deposits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123081 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Non compliance; Condonation of delay
• Section: 147; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.196/LKW/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Income Tax Oficer-1, Faizabad Vs. Algu Yadav, Vill. Ramuka Purwa, Bhadhokhar, Itaura, Faizabad PAN BCJPA 0117N (Respondent) (Appellant) None present for the assessee. Appellant by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl.CIT( DR) Respondent by 11/09/2023 Date of hearing 27/09/2023 Date of pronouncement O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal-1, Lucknow [hereinafter called the ‘CIT(A)] for A.Y. 2011- 12 wherein, the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed in limine for the reason of non compliance. 2. The brief facts of the case are that based on specific information that the assessee had made cash deposit of 2 ITA No. 196/Lkw/2022 Rs.15,96,000/- in his Saving Bank Account with Allahabad Bank, action u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) was initiated. Subsequently, statutory notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were duly issued requiring the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits. However, since no reply was forthcoming from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment in terms of Section 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.15,96,000/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, here again, inspite of numerous opportunities, as enumerated in the appellate order, no response was forthcoming from the side of the assessee and the assessee’s appeal came to be dismissed in limine by the ld. First Appellate Authority. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the ld. CIT(A) by raising the following ground of appeal: “1. That CIT(A)-1, Lko has passed an order in which income assessed is of Rs.15,96,000/- 1. That the returned income was of Rs.Nil whereas total income assessed as per section 144 r.w.s. 144b is of Rs.15,96,000/-. 2. Any other relief which your good self may deem fit. 3. The assessee 3 ITA No. 196/Lkw/2022 reserve the right to add, delete, alter or amend any grounds of appeal stated above.” 5. None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any adjournment application placed before me in this regard. However, looking into the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to proceed with hearing of the appeal based on record before me. 6. It is seen that the present appeal is time barred by seven days. In this regard, an application for condonation of delay is on record wherein, it has been stated that the assessee was not served with the copy of the appellate order and the same was received only after making the request in writing and, therefore, the delay had occured. 7. On a query, the ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the delay being condoned. Therefore, looking into the facts narrated in the delay condonation application as well as the affidavit supporting the said application, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. A perusal of the records shows that the assessee is in illiterate person and he, perhaps, did not have proper legal assistance at his disposal either at the time of assessment or during the course of 4 ITA No. 196/Lkw/2022 first appellate proceedings. Therefore, looking into the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the assessee deserves another opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits. 9. On a query, the ld. Senior D.R. has fairly agreed that the appeal may be restored to the Office of the Assessing Officer for being adjudicated afresh. Therefore, in view of the facts of the case and also in view of the agreement by the ld. Senior D.R., I restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to adjudicate the issue afresh after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 10. In the final result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 27/09/2023) Sd/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Aks – Dtd. 27 /09/2023 Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) Departmental Representative (5) Guard File Assistant Registrar