KAMIL AYUB MOMIN,PUNE V. ITO WARD 9(3), PUNE

ITA 1888/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Kamil Ayub Momin, the appellant, who contested an order from the CIT(A) regarding an unexplained cash deposit of Rs.40,93,330 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially delayed by 493 days due to the lethargic approach of the tax consultants, which the Tribunal condoned. The primary grievance was the lack of a fair opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A), as the hearings coincided with COVID-19 restrictions, and there was no subsequent communication about the hearings. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adhered to the statutory requirements of passing a speaking order as mandated by section 250(6) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471150 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B. S. RAJPUROHIT
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIK B. SANDHBHOR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Assessment record

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1888/PUN/2024 \u000bनधा\u000fरण वष\u000f / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kamil Ayub Momin, Sr.No.32, Datta Nagar, Thergaon, Pimpri, Pune 411 033 Maharashtra PAN : CGVPM1981P Vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short \"AY\") 2017-18 is directed against the order passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act\"] by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [in short ld.\"CIT(A)\"] dated 08.03.2023 arising out of the Assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2019. 2. The Registry has informed that there is a delay of 493 days in filing of the present appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for Assessee by : Shri Pratik B. Sandhbhor Revenue by : Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Date of hearing : 22.10.2024 Date of pronouncement : 24.10.2024 ITA No.1888/PUN/2024 2 condonation of delay citing the reasons mentioned in the detailed affidavit given by the assessee. 3. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and find merit in the same as the assessee had reasonable cause which prevented him from filing the instant appeal before this Tribunal in time as he was dependent upon the tax consultants and for the lethargic approach of the tax consultants the delay has occurred. I therefore condone the delay of 493 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal but the sole grievance is against the addition u/s.69A of the Act for alleged unexplained cash deposit of Rs.40,93,330/-. 5. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee did not get fair opportunity to plead before the ld. CIT(A) and therefore an opportunity may be granted by sending the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the submissions of assessee as well as evidence to be filed in support of his claim. 6. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative was fair enough in not opposing this request. ITA No.1888/PUN/2024 3 7. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the order of ld. CIT(A) is exparte and there is discussion on merits of the case. I also notice that on the first two occasions when the assessee was asked to appear/furnish the replies those dates were falling during the Covid-19 restriction. Thereafter, the assessee did not get any information of the dates of hearing. But ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal without dealing with the merits even when the assessment records were available with him. Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a speaking order dealing with the merits of the case as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act which provides that for adjudicating the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) should dispose of the same in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for that decision. 8. Since the ld. CIT(A) has not adhered to the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act and has not passed a speaking order, I am of the considered view that the issues raised in the instant appeal deserves to be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and for doing the needful reasonable opportunity has to be granted to the assessee to furnish submissions and other evidences if needed, in order to explain the sources of alleged cash deposit. On ITA No.1888/PUN/2024 4 due consideration of the same, ld. CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld. CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Finding of the CIT(A) is set aside and Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 24th day of October, 2024. Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (MANISH BORAD) JUDIC L MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 24th October, 2024. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ\tेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\f / The Appellant. 2. \r\u000eयथ\f / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय \rितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "