Ammani Palaniswamy , Bangalore V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore

ITA 413/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Ammani Palaniswamy, the appellant, who contested the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, which dismissed her appeal for being filed 106 days late without considering the merits of the case. The appellant had initially filed her income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17, declaring an income of Rs.4,03,200. The return was processed, and subsequent scrutiny revealed substantial cash deposits in her bank account, which were added to her income. The appellant's rectification application was rejected, leading to a belated appeal to the CIT(A), which was dismissed due to the delay. The ITAT, considering the circumstances of the delay and the lack of malafide intent, decided to condone the delay and remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124542 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji And Others (1987) 167 ITR 471
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 154; 143(1); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.413/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ammani Palaniswamy, No.777.A, 5 th Floor, KP Towers, 100 Feet Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 008. PAN No. – AEAPA 2877F Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri G Venkatesh, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Nischal B, Addl. Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 06.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.07.2023 O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the NFC, New Delhi vide order dated 23/03/2023, DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051174310(1) , u/s 250 of the Income-tax for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal belatedly for 106 days & 2 of page 5 ITA No.413/Bang/2023 without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 03/03/2017 declaring an income of Rs.4,03,200/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for limited scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee but the assessee did not responded to any of the notices of the AO. Accordingly, the AO decided the issue on the basis of the material available before him. As per the ITS/AIR information, the assessee has deposited cash of of Rs.1,68,00,000/- in the State Bank of Mysore in her savings bank account No.00000054020990558 and entire cash deposits were added into the total income of the assessee. The assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act, which was rejected by the AO on 08/04/2019. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal belatedly before the CIT(A) against the order passed u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee also filed bank account statement and evidence regarding source for cash deposits in bank account and gave reason for condonation of delay, which was not accepted and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed without going into the merits of the case. 5. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT. 3 of page 5 ITA No.413/Bang/2023 6. During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the actual facts for the belatedly filing the appeal. He submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and she came to know in regard to assessment proceedings only when the AO called telephonically for the recovery of the demand. The assessee being a lady was not conversant with the technology. After receiving the assessment order, the assessee filed rectification before the AO which was rejected. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the assessee had no any malafide intention for non filing appeal within the period of limitation and she has also not got any gain for belatedly filing appeal. He further submitted that unless there is any cogent material on record to show that the assessee has acted negligently or with any malafide intention, the delay ought to have been condoned specially where huge tax liability and demand is involved. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji And Others (1987) 167 ITR 471. Further, he submitted that the evidence for the cash deposits in her bank account and source of cash deposits were also placed before the CIT(A) but the ld.CIT(A) has not considered the same. He requested that the delay may be condoned and the matter may be sent back to the AO for fresh assessment and undertook to pursue the matter. 7. The ld.DR objected for sending back the matter before the AO and submitted that ample opportunity was granted by both the authorities but assessee could not avail the benefit. 4 of page 5 ITA No.413/Bang/2023 8. After hearing rival contention and facts submitted by the ld.AR of the assessee for belatedly filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as narrated above and also relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supra) we hold that there was sufficient reason for belated filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) and condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). We have also gone through the bank statement and notice that the assessee has made huge cash transaction on different dates. In the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the AO with a direction for redoing fresh assessment and decision as per law and also to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate her case before the AO with cogent materials and further direct not to seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12 th July, 2023 Sd/- (George George K) Vice President Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 12 th July, 2023 Vms 5 of page 5 ITA No.413/Bang/2023 Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar/ITAT, Bangalore 6 of page 5 ITA No.413/Bang/2023 1. Date of Dictation ............................................. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member ......................... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to Sr. P. S ................................... 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the dictating Member .................... 5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S. ....................... 6. Date of uploading the order on website................................... 7. If not uploaded, furnish the reason for doing so ................................ 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ....................... 9. Date on which order goes for Xerox & endorsement.......................................... 10. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk ......................... 11. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order ..................................... 12. The date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch of the Tribunal Order ............................... 13. Date of Despatch of Order. ..................................................... 14. Dictation note enclosed..........................................