Shri. Gopal Marishamaiah, Bangalore V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 682/BANG/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5734 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K. CHANDASEKHAR
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay
• Section: 250; 143(2); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.682/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Gopal Marishamaiah, No.1260, 15 th Main, BM Second Stage, Bengaluru – 560 076. PAN : ACUPM 2857 P Vs.ITO, Ward – 4(3)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANTRESPONDENT Assessee by:Shri.K. Chandasekhar, Advocate Revenue by :Shri.Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue. Date of hearing:01.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement:01.11.2023 O R D E R This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 03.06.2022, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 411 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also an affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the assessee for belated filing of the appeal are reproduced below: “”2. I am a retired employee from Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore. I retired from HAL In the year 2006. I am now aged about 77 years. 3. I own two properties in one property, I live along with my wife, who is 70 years of age. I have let out the other property and during the assessment ITA No.682/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 5 year 2017-2018, I derived income of Rs.7,27,656/- and the taxable income from property was Rs.4,89,335/-. I also received interest from bank, which was Rs.39,412/-. Therefore, I filed the return of Income voluntarily and paid taxes on the income return. 4. On the basis of cash deposits amounting to Rs.13,04,000/- made in the bank, my case was selected for scrutiny and an assessment was completed on 16-12-2019 treating the cash deposits as income and determined income at Rs.17,82,750/-. 5. I filed an appeal against the order of assessment dated 16-12-2019 through Sri. Kumar, Auditor, who is at DVG Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore- 560004. Appeal has been dismissed ex-party confirming the addition on 03-06-2022 by the National Faceless App al Centre, (NFAC), Delhi. The order dismissing the appeal was uploaded on the e-filing portal and no copy of the same has been served on me. I do not use the e-filing portal and my consultant usually uses same for filing of return. 6. I was not aware of the dismissal of appeal till, 1 received notice for payment of taxes dated 20-07-2023 through post. Immediately, I contacted my Auditor and I have collected the file after providing all necessary papers, I have now filed appeal in this process there is a delay of 411 days in filing the appeal. I submit I am a retired employee and not aware of the procedures. Till I received notice dated 20-07-2023, I was not aware of dismissal of appeal. Myself and my brother sold Agricultural lands belonging to the family and I received a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- to my share and after disbursing some gifts, I had retained cash with me. On account of demonetization, I deposited the cash into bank. On account of old age and to meet expenses, cash was kept with me. My two daughters are married and myself and my wife are only in the house. I submit that I have studied up to SSLC. I have good case on merits. The delay in filing the appeal is unintentional for the reasons beyond my control. On account of accident, I am not able to more freely and deduction u/s.80U of the Act is also given to me. The impugned order of the appellate authority is came to my notice only on receipt of the notice of demand. The impugned order has been passed on 03- 06-2022 and appeal ought to have filed on or before 0208-2022 but filing the appeal on 14-09-2023 and there is a delay of 411 days in filing the appeal. ITA No.682/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 5 The delay is un-intentional and bonofide reason. I am having good case on merit, and prays this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone” the delay of 411 days, if the delay is not condoned, I will be put into great hardship and injury which cannot be compensated and in other side, no inconvenience will be cause to the Respondent if the delay as prayed for is condoned. Wherefore, I prays this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of 411 days in filing this appeal and hear the appeal on merit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Assessee is a senior citizen aged 77 years. He is physically handicapped person and certificate to that effect same is enclosed in the Paper Book filed by the assessee. Assessee submitted that he was not aware of the dismissal of the appeal till he received the notice of payment to taxes on 20.07.2023 through post. Thereafter, immediately the appeal was filed. No litigant is benefited by intentionally filing the appeal belatedly. Assessee, in the instant case, being a senior citizen and not being very computer literate, would not have opened the website wherein the appellate order has been uploaded. Dismissal of the appeal is not intimated to the assessee’s personal email account. Therefore, the submission of the assessee cannot be brushed aside. In the interest of justice and equity, I am of the view that the delay in filing this appeal needs to be condoned and accordingly I condone the same and proceed to dispose the appeal on merits. 4. The solitary issue that is raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.13,04,000/- made by the AO. 5. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee, an individual, filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 23.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,78,750/-. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny on account of cash deposit made in the bank account during demonetization period. The notice under section 143(2) of the Act ITA No.682/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 5 was issued on 07.09.2018. Assessee, during the demonetization period, had deposited a sum of Rs.13,04,000/- into his bank account with Indian Overseen Bank, J. P. Nagar Branch, Bengaluru. The assessee filed objections for the proposal for addition of the said amount under section 69A of the Act. However, the objections of the assessee were rejected and the entire cash deposit of Rs.13,04,000/- was added as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The AO also applied special rate of tax as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessment, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). There was no written submission or request for adjournment to three of the hearing notices issued from the office of the FAA. Therefore, the CIT(A) disposed off the appeal by confirming the addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) held that assessee needs to explain the nature of source of cash deposit and having failed to do so, the addition made is sustained. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee, on merits, has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein the salary certificate from HAL, copy of medical certificate to the effect that assessee is a physically handicapped person, bank statement of Indian Overseas Bank, copy of the sale deed dated 05.09.2002. The learned AR submitted that assessee had sold agricultural land jointly owned with his brother, and the sale proceeds were kept with him after making some gifts to his daughters. Due to old age and his wife not being well, necessarily cash was kept for meeting various expenses. Therefore, it was submitted that the addition made under section 69A of the Act is not warranted. 8. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that assessee has been changing his stand with regard to the source of cash deposits before the AO/CIT(A) and now ITA No.682/Bang/2023 Page 5 of 5 presently before the Tribunal and his explanation is not believable. Therefore, it was contended that the addition made under section 69A of the Act and sustained by the CIT(A) needs to be upheld. 9. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee had not filed the written submissions before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by disbelieving the source of cash deposits. In the interest of justice and equity, I am of the view that one more opportunity ought to be granted to the assessee to prove the source of cash deposits. For the aforesaid purposes, the issue raised is restored to the files of AO. The AO is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall furnish the proof in support of his case as regards the source of cash deposits. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU)(GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 01.11.2023. /NS/* Copy to: 1.Appellants2.Respondent 3.DRP4.CIT 5.CIT(A)6.DR,ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.