Rabindra Nath Maity , Mandirtala V. ITO,Ward-26(4). , Kolkata

ITA 254/KOL/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Rabindra Nath Maity against the order of the CIT(A), which dismissed his appeal due to a delay of 434 days in filing. The delay was attributed to the COVID-19 outbreak and the remote location of the assessee in Sagar Island, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal. The primary issue in the original assessment was the addition of Rs. 55,16,500 as unexplained cash credit under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that this amount represented consolidated deposits from customers at a common service center of the Bank, and thus, was not unexplained. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the reasons for the delay or the merits of the case and thus restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122973 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Kashmir Road Lines vs DCIT (2021) 123 taxmann.com 5 (Amritsar Trib.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C.P. BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH TIWARI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(2); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 254/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rabindra Nath Maity Mandirtala, Sagar, South 24 Parganas - 743373 PAN: BCIPM 4853 L Vs. ITO, Ward-26(4), Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA Respondent by : Shri C.P. Bhatia, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 18.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 O R D E R PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: This appeal by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1)(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay of 434 days. (b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is erred in ignoring the fact that the appellant hails from remote area of Sagar Island of the district of South 24 Parganas, West Bengal and for income tax matters fully dependent on the income tax consultants and hence delay in filing of appeal was not international. 2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in rejecting the appeal without considering the merits of the case. 3) (a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO to treat the cash deposit of Rs. 55,16,500/- into the bank account as unexplained cash credit u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. (b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the sum of cash deposit as explained in view of the fact ITA No.254/KOL/2023 Rabindra Nath Maity A.Y. 2017-18 2 that appellant running common service centre of the Bank and the sum of Rs. 55,16,500/- was the consolidated deposit of customers of the bank. 4) That the appellant craves the leave to make any addition, alteration, modification, etc of the grounds either before the appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2018. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS followed by notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. However, assessee did not comply with such notices issued by AO and the ld. AO framed the assessment order by making an addition of Rs. 55,16,500/- in the hands of assessee u/s 69 of the Act. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was delay of 434 days which was due to Covid out-break that point of time and assessee had filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) along with delay condonation petition against the order of ld. AO but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 4. The ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee’s appeal has been summarily dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and also did not go into the merits of the case. Therefore, the issue involved in the appeal may be remand back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication since the assessee could not get an opportunity to appear before the ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A) also did not consider the prayer made before him during the appellant proceeding. ITA No.254/KOL/2023 Rabindra Nath Maity A.Y. 2017-18 3 5. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the decision rendered by the authorities below and supported the action taken by them. We after going through the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), we note that the ld. CIT(A) relied on the various judicial precedents regarding the law relating to condonation of delay. However, he had not specifically dealt with the reasons submitted by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal and while dealing in the instant case, ld. CIT(A) simply brushed aside the reason stated by the assessee for condone the delay in filing the appeal. Moreover, we note that even if the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is rejected even then ld. CIT(A) should have disposed of the appeal on merits and should not have summarily dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal without deciding the case on merits. 6. We after hearing the submission of the parties and perused the material available on record. In our considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has not approached the matter judiciously and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by simply rejecting the application for condonation of delay without assigning any specific reason as to why the delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned. In our view, assessee should not be precluded an opportunity of hearing on merits of the case simply on account of delay of filing the appeal. Even otherwise co-ordinate bench has held in the case of Kashmir Road Lines vs DCIT (2021) 123 taxmann.com 5 (Amritsar Trib.), even when the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal then also the ld. CIT(A) should disposed of the appeal on merit. We, therefore, following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal, the whole issue in the instant appeal restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the matter for de novo adjudication and decide in accordance with law after considering the submission ITA No.254/KOL/2023 Rabindra Nath Maity A.Y. 2017-18 4 made by the assessee for which reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and filed necessary document in support of its ground of appeal and should not take any further adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. In case after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, there is no compliance before the ld. AO, the ld. AO can proceed to pass the order in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.07.2023 Sd/- Sd/- [Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SONJOY SARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 19.07.2023 Biswajit Copy to: 1. The Appellant: Rabindra Nath Maity. 2. The Respondent: ITO, Ward-26(4), Kolkata. 3. The CIT, 4. The CIT (A) 5. The DR //True Copy// [ By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata