RAJAN DUBEY, MUMBAI V. CIT (AU)-2, KALYAN

ITA 2120/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0388 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2120/MUM/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey, E/11 Flat No. 2, Deshmukh Home Building, Tata Power House, Tata Power Lane, Dombivali (East)-421 201. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (AU)-2, 2 nd floor, Ravi Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan-421 301. PAN No. BBZPD 9784 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Haresh Joshi, AR Revenue by : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR Date of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 05/07/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.04.2021 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], for assessment year 2017- 18, raising following grounds: 1. The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 1,51,500/ (Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Only of Income Tax act, 1961 to the total returned income without enquiring into the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of the Income Tax act, 1961 and rules made thereunder. 2. 2) The Assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. ignoring the CBDT Instruction No: 03/2017 dated 21st February, 2017 regarding Cash Deposit during the Demonetization period and CIT (A) also confirmed the same without appreciating the said CDT Instruction No 03/2017. 2. At the outset, we find 175 days. The date of communication of order of Ld. CIT(A) in Form No. 36 has been reported due for filing on 01.06.2021 21.11.2021. We find t extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in 2020, wherein it is directed that period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 1,51,500/ (Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Only of Income Tax act, 1961 to the total returned income without enquiring into the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of the Income Tax act, 1961 and rules made thereunder. 2) The Assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. ignoring the CBDT Instruction No: 03/2017 dated 21st February, 2017 regarding Cash Deposit during the Demonetization period and CIT (A) also confirmed the same without appreciating the said CDT Instruction No 03/2017. At the outset, we find that appeal has been filed date of communication of order of Ld. CIT(A) in Form No. 36 has been reported as 01.04.2021 and therefore appeal was due for filing on 01.06.2021, whereas appeal has been filed on 21.11.2021. We find that the appeal has been filed within the period extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous No. 21 of 2022 in suo moto writ petition 2020, wherein it is directed that period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey ITA No. 2120/M/2021 2 The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 1,51,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Only) u/s 69A of Income Tax act, 1961 to the total returned income without enquiring into the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of the Income Tax act, 1961 and rules made thereunder. 2) The Assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 1,51,500/- ignoring the CBDT Instruction No: 03/2017 dated 21st February, 2017 regarding Cash Deposit during the Demonetization period and CIT (A) also confirmed the same without appreciating the said that appeal has been filed with delay of date of communication of order of Ld. CIT(A) in Form 01.04.2021 and therefore appeal was whereas appeal has been filed on hat the appeal has been filed within the period extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous writ petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, wherein it is directed that period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quashi judicial proceedings. admitted for adjudication 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that th assessee could not represent that assessee was in police custody during the period counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee is willing to represent before the Ld. CIT(A) and file evidence in support of its claim of source of deposits of has been held as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances that the assessee was prevented from reasonable cause in representing before the Ld. CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the matter any explanation by the assessee. In the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh. The assessee is also directed to file the Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey quashi judicial proceedings. Accordingly admitted for adjudication. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that th assessee could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A) due to the fact that assessee was in police custody during the period assessee submitted that the assessee is willing to represent before the Ld. CIT(A) and file evidence in support of its claim of source of deposits of ₹1,51,500/- in his bank account which has been held as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 61 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer. In view of the facts and circumstances that the assessee was prevented from reasonable cause in representing before the Ld. the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the matter ex y explanation by the assessee. In the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh. The assessee is also directed to file the Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey ITA No. 2120/M/2021 3 gly, the appeal is Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the before the Ld. CIT(A) due to the fact that assessee was in police custody during the period. The Ld. assessee submitted that the assessee is willing to represent before the Ld. CIT(A) and file evidence in support of its in his bank account which has been held as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, In view of the facts and circumstances that the assessee was prevented from reasonable cause in representing before the Ld. ex-parte without y explanation by the assessee. In the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh. The assessee is also directed to file the necessary evidence in support of its claim bef co-operate in disposal of the appeal. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 05/07/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey necessary evidence in support of its claim before the Ld. CIT(A) and operate in disposal of the appeal. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for ounced in the Court on 05/07/2022. Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Mumbai Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey ITA No. 2120/M/2021 4 ore the Ld. CIT(A) and operate in disposal of the appeal. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for OM PRAKASH KANT) MEMBER Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai