KAILASH TYAGI,YAMUNANAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, YAMUNANAGAR

ITA 698/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Kailash Tyagi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 22,20,000 to his income, which was alleged to be undisclosed income. The appellant argued that the amount deposited in a joint bank account was agricultural income earned by his late husband, and thus not liable for tax. The initial appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for want of proper evidence and non-prosecution. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay in filing the appeal due to the appellant's illness reasonable and admitted the appeal, directing a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772281 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURINDER KAUR WARAICH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SACHDEVA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 698/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Kailash Tyagi, #524, Gobind Puri, Near Santhosh Hospital, Yamunanagar बनाम Vs. ITO, Ward 2, Yamunanagar èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADUPT9570D अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri. Rajiv Sachdeva, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 27-08-2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 27 -08-2025 आदेश/Order This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dt. 24.2.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds: Printed from counselvise.com 2 1. That the Order passed by CIT(Appeals) and Assessment Order is illegal beyond facts and uncalled for. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and Assessment Order has erred in making addition of Rs. 22,20,000/- on facts and in law. 3. That the addition made under section 69A for Rs. 2220000/- is illegal beyond facts and uncalled for. 4. That on facts and in law the amount deposited for Rs. 2220000/- in Joint Bank account is of her husband and out of agriculture Income earned by Late Husband Kailash Tyagi. 5. That no tax is payable on Interest Income from Central Cooperative Bank since the share of Interest is half being joint account and overall income including Interest is below taxable limit 6. That the Ld. A.O. has not provided copy of the reasons recorded 7. That the Ld. A.O. has wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the act. 8. That the appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. 2. At the outset it is noticed that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 27 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed along with supporting medical. Printed from counselvise.com 3 3. The learned AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to unavoidable medical circumstances. The assessee was suffering from typhoid and was under medical treatment during the relevant period, and therefore, could not attend to the filing of the appeal in time. It was contended that the delay was not deliberate but due to sufficient cause. 4. The AR further submitted that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal mainly for want of proper evidence and non-prosecution. He argued that the assessee is now willing to produce the relevant bank statements, certified copies of account, and other evidences to demonstrate that the cash deposits did not represent undisclosed income. He prayed that the delay may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer so that the assessee gets an effective opportunity to explain his case on merits. 5. Per contra learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities. He contended that despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). The DR submitted that law assists only vigilant taxpayers and not those who Printed from counselvise.com 4 remain careless of their rights. He thus argued that the orders of the authorities below should be upheld. However, he fairly left the issue of condonation of delay to the discretion of the Bench. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned AR for the assessee and the learned DR for the Revenue. The explanation offered by the assessee regarding medical illness is found reasonable and supported by documentary evidence. I am satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 7. On merits, I find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without proper adjudication. In the interest of substantial justice, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO shall re- adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate fully by furnishing all necessary evidences and explanations. Printed from counselvise.com 5 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 27.08.2025. Sd/- ( LALIET KUMAR ) Judicial Member “आर.क े.” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "