Shri Dinesh Patel, Indore V. I T O-3(4), Indore

ITA 219/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0923 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MOURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: VEENUS RAWAKA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.219/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ITA NO.220/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 APPELLANT BY SHRI VEENUS RAWAKA , C A REVENUE BY SHRI R.P. MOURYA SR. , DR DATE OF HEARING 05 .0 3 .2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26 .05 .2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED AT THE INSTANCE O F DIFFERENT ASSESSEES PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)-I SHRI DINESH PATEL 201, KHATIPURE, SUKHLIYA, INDORE VS. ITO 3 ( 4 ) INDORE (APPELLANT) (REVENUE ) PAN NO. BJRPP 4485 P SHRI SATYA NARAYAN PATEL 201, KHATIPURE, SUKHLIYA, INDORE VS. ACIT 2(1) UJJAIN (APPELLANT) (REVENUE ) PAN NO. BJRPP 4304 B ITANO.219 & 220/IND/2019 SHRI DINESH PATEL & SATYA NARAYAN PATEL 2 (IN SHORT LD.CIT(A)], INDORE DATED 22.01.2019 WHI CH IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 144/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 28.12.2017 FRAMED BY ITO,3(4), INDORE. 2. AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH APPEALS ARE COMMON, BOTH WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 3. BRIEF FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE T HAT BOTH THESE CASES WHICH ARE OF INDIVIDUALS NAMELY SHRI DINESH P ATEL & SHRI SATYA NARAYAN PATEL. RETURNS OF INCOME WERE NOT FIL ED. INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT W AS RECEIVED FROM THE BANK AUTHORITY TO THE INFORMATION SYSTEM O F INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. MATTER REFERRED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. SHOW CAUSE NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO BOTH THE ASSESSEES. THERE WA S NO COMPLIANCE. AS A RESULT LD. AO, WENT AHEAD TO FRAME AN EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THERE WAS AN ALLEGED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1,36,00,000/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI DINESH PATE L AND RS. 1,35,85,000/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI SATYA NARAYAN PAT EL. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER LD. AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(4), INDORE, COM PLETED THE EX- PARTE ASSESSMENT MAKING ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CR EDIT OF RS. RS.1,36,00,000/- AND RS. 1,35,85,000/- IN THE C ASE OF ASSESSEES NAMELY, SHRI DINESH PATEL & SHRI SATYA NA RAYAN PATEL RESPECTIVELY. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE(S) PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT ITANO.219 & 220/IND/2019 SHRI DINESH PATEL & SATYA NARAYAN PATEL 3 SINCE THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND IN VIEW OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE REASON FOR DELAY WAS NOT SATISFACTORY, T HE SAME WAS NOT CONDONED AND BOTH THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED IN LIMINE WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES ON MERITS. 5. NOW, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CO MMONLY RAISING TWO ISSUES. FIRSTLY, THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN N OT CONDONING DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM AND SECONDLY, THE I SSUES ON MERITS NOT ADJUDICATED. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE AFF IDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ALSO BEFORE US SU BMITTING THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT WELL EDUCATED AND DO NOT UNDE RSTAND ENGLISH LANGUAGE. THEY ARE DEPENDENT ON THE TAX ADVISOR WHO DID NOT FILE THE APPEAL ON TIME WHICH RESULTED IN THE DELAY IN F ILING THE APPEAL. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HUMBLY PRAYED FOR COND ONING THE DELAY MADE IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ISS UE NECESSARY DIRECTIONS FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES ON MERITS. 7. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) OPPOSED THE REQUEST MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE OBSERVE THAT THE INFORMATION OF CASH DEPOSIT FOR RS.1,36,00,000/- AND RS.1,35,85,000/- IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS OF MR. DINESH PATEL AND SATYA NARAYAN PATE L WAS RECEIVED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. BOTH THE ASSESSEES DI D NOT COOPERATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH LEFT NO OPTION TO THE ITANO.219 & 220/IND/2019 SHRI DINESH PATEL & SATYA NARAYAN PATEL 4 ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT TO FRAME THE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,36,00,000/- AND RS.1,35, 85,000/- FOR ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE CASE OF EAC H OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES COMMI TTED MISTAKE AS THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES. WE HAVE GONE THROU GH THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) AND BEFORE US. LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT BOTH ASSESSEES ARE NOT WELL EDUCATED, AND ARE NOT FILING THE RETURN REGULARLY AND THEIR S OURCES OF INCOME PRIMARILY LOOKS TO BE FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND/AGRICU LTURAL OPERATIONS. GENERALLY THE ASSESSEES DEPEND ON THE TAX CONSULTAN T/TAX ADVISOR FOR THE TAX CONSULTANT AND FILING OF RETURN AND APP EALS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS FRAMED ON 28.12. 2017 AND APPEAL FILED ON 30 TH APRIL 2018. THE DELAY IS NOT EXTRAORDINARY. 10. THEREFORE, LOOKING TO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAU SE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE(S) FOR THE ALLEGED DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE CONDONE THE D ELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASES OF THE AS SESSEES NAMELY, SHRI DINESH PATEL AND SATYA NARAYAN PATEL. WE FURTH ER SET ASIDE ALL THE ISSUES RAISED ON MERITS BEFORE US IN BOTH THE A PPEALS TO THE RESPECTIVE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THAT ON MERITS AND TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. IF NECESSARY, REMAND REPORT MAY BE CALLED FROM THE CONCERN ASSESSING OFFICER. WE, ACCORDINGLY , ALLOWED ITANO.219 & 220/IND/2019 SHRI DINESH PATEL & SATYA NARAYAN PATEL 5 COMMON GROUND NO.1 BY CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALLOW COMMON GROUND NO.2 RAISED ON MERITS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES IN ITAN O.219 & 220/IND/2019 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.05.20 20. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 26 TH MAY, 2020 PATEL/PS COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE