NASIRUDDIN,MEERUT V. ITO, WARD-2(1), MEERUT, MEERUT

ITA 1233/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Nasiruddin against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which dismissed his appeal as time-barred. The original dispute arose from cash deposits and credit entries in Nasiruddin's bank account, totaling Rs. 55,02,980, which were added back to his income as unexplained credits under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The AO had initially passed an exparte order under section 144 of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the delay in filing, which Nasiruddin attributed to his medical treatment. The ITAT found reasonable cause for the delay and remitted the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315582 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KISHAN MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT AGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1233/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Nasiruddin, VS. ITO, Ward 2(1), 21/44, Muftivara, Behind Kotwali, Meerut Meerut (PAN: AVNPN6331P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Rohit Agarwal, CA Respondent by : Sh. Ram Kishan Meena, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 14.05.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi on the following grounds:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and the facts of the case by dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant as barred by limitation, ignoring the request for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the appeal as made during the course of appeal proceedings. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to decide the appeal of the appellant on merits. 3. That the AO and CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by charging income tax u/s. 115BBE, which was introduced by Taxation 2 | P a g e Laws (Second Amendment Act, 2016), enacted on 15.12.2016 to the alleged unexplained credit u/s. 69A of the Act, ignoring the legal position that the increased tax rate of 60% u/s. section 115BBE were applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2017 onwards and not to the transactions prior to the said cut off date. 4. That the appellant respectfully craves leave to add alter omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal to enable goods self to decide the appeal in accordance with law. 2. In this case assessee has made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 19,95,000/- and other credit entries appearing in bank account of Rs. 35,07,480/- thereby total amounting to Rs. 55,02,980/-, which was added back in the hands of the assessee on account of non-explanation of the said amount. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of time barred. 3. Against the aforesaid order, assessee is in appeal before us. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of limitation. Hence, it was pleaded that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to canvass his case before the AO and accordingly, AO may be directed to decide the issues in dispute afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. Ld. Sr. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find that AO has passed the exaprte order u/s. 144 of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal being time barred. We further find that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for 50 days delay in filing the appeal, which has been occurred due to medical treatment of the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay of 50 days before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned. Accordingly, we remit back the issues in dispute to the 3 | P a g e file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "