MAYA YADAV,LUCKNOW V. D/ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

ITA 642/LKW/2024

AI Insights

Maya Yadav filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had dismissed her earlier appeals on grounds of limitation without deciding on merits. The original assessment order had determined her total income at Rs.94,12,090, including an addition of Rs.75,93,578 as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, and imposed a penalty of Rs.71,82,030 under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal found that the appeals were dismissed without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 43563 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR RAJWANSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: B. P. YADAV
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 147; 144; 250; 271(1)(c); 68

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.641 & 642/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.641 & 642/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 Maya Yadav, 24, Baghamau, Gomti Nagar Extension Lucknow. PAN:AEVPY4546E Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M. (A) These two appeals vide I.T.A. No.641 & 641/Lkw/2024 have been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 against impugned appellate orders both dated 26/08/2024, DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068077246(1) and No.ITBA/ NFAC/ S/ 250 / Appellant by Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate Respondent by Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT (D.R.) I.T.A. No.641 & 642/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 2 2024-25/1068078324(1) respectively of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] for short]. (B) In this case assessment order dated 29/03/2022 was passed u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the I. T. Act (DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042012849(1) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.94,12,090/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.75,93,578/- was made towards unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also imposed penalty of Rs.71,82,030/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessment order and the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, were passed ex-parte qua the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matters in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate orders, each dated 28/08/2024, the assessee’s appeals were dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) did not decide the assessee’s appeals on merits. The assessee’s appeals were dismissed by learned CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. The assessee had requested for condonation of delay, however, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeals were dismissed treating the same as inadmissible on grounds of limitation. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeals in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (C) At the time of hearing before us, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was sufficient cause behind filing the appeal belatedly before the learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed without providing reasonable opportunity of I.T.A. No.641 & 642/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 being heard. He drew our attention to records and pleaded that once the assessee came to know that orders had been passed against her, the appeals were filed immediately by her in the office of the learned CIT(A). He further submitted that there was no mala-fide intention behind filing the appeals belatedly. Moreover, he contended that in view of these submissions, the delay in filing of appeals in the office of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. He also submitted that issues in dispute regarding additions made in the assessment order and levy of penalty in order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo orders. The learned Departmental Representative expressed no objection to these submissions. In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied within the meaning of section 249(3), that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals in the office of the learned CIT(A) within prescribed time limit. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeals in his office and to admit the appeals for decision on merits. Further, on perusal of the assessment order and the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the impugned appellate orders of learned CIT(A), we find that the Assessing Officer passed ex-parte orders without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee; and the learned CIT(A) also passed the impugned orders without providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee. (D) In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned appellate orders dated 28/08/2024 of the learned CIT(A) and we restore all the issues in dispute regarding additions made in assessment order to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance I.T.A. No.641 & 642/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 4 with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Further, the issue regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer; and if so deemed fit the Assessing Officer may pass de novo order u/s 271(1)(c) after passing de novo assessment order and after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (E) In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. (Order was pronounced in the open court on 26/03/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:26/03/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) Assistant Registrar "