NATTHU SINGH,NOIDA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NOIDA

ITA 3596/DEL/2024

AI Insights

Natthu Singh, an agriculturist, did not file a return for the assessment year 2011-12, claiming no taxable income. His case was reopened under Section 147, leading to an assessment order that added Rs.10,25,000 as unexplained cash deposit under Section 68. Singh, unaware of this order until a demand notice was served to his brother, filed an appeal which was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to alleged delay. The ITAT, however, found the appeal to be within the statutory period and, on merits, ruled that Section 68 was inapplicable, thus quashing the addition and dismissing the penalty appeal as infructuous.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36985 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Vijay Kumar Prop. V.K. Medical Hall Vs. ITO, Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta Vs. ITO, Neeraj Paliwal Vs. ITO, Jack Financial Services Private Limited Vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S.S. NAGAR
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 271(1)(c); 68

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 3594 & 3596/Del/2024 Natthu Singh (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3594 & 3596 /Del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Natthu Singh H.No. 93, Village Barola, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201304 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3) Aaykar Bhawan A-2D, 4th Floor, Sector 24, Noida Uttar Pradesh \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: BOZPS4890G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. S.S. Nagar, CA Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 25.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2025 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) Delhi, both dated 10.06.2024 under Section 147/144 and Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) respectively, for Assessment Year 2011-12. P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 3594 & 3596/Del/2024 Natthu Singh (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) ITA No.3596/Del/2024 2. The brief fact leading to the case are that the assessee an individual, engaged in agricultural activities did not file its return of income for the year under consideration as he did not earn any taxable income. The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 22.03.20128 followed by several notices under Section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee, an individual, illiterate is having lack of knowledge of the income tax portal and unfamiliar with the communication made by the authorities through email or messaging services. Thus, the notices remained non complied with. 3. Such assessment was completed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 30.11.2018 upon making addition of Rs.10,25,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee was not aware of such issuance of assessment order and only upon demand notice being served upon the assessee’s brother he enquired into the matter and applied for certified copy of the order which was received by him on 03.02.2020 as it is evident from the assessment order dated 30.11.2018 filed by the assessee before us. The appeal was thereafter filed on 21.02.2020 i.e. within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the said order appeal was preferred which stood dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) due to inordinate delay in filing the same. Hence, the instant appeal before us. P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 3594 & 3596/Del/2024 Natthu Singh (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) 5. At the time of the hearing of the matter the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee Mr. S.S. Nagar submitted before us that admittedly the appeal preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of assessment as already narrated in the foregoing paragraph and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of inordinate delay caused in preferring the appeal before him. In fact, the appeal preferred by the Ld. CIT(A) was not barred by limitation and the same was filed well within the statutory period having regard to the date of receipt of the assessment order. Such submission made by the Ld. AR has not been objected by the Ld. DR. Considering the date of receipt of the assessment order the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) is not found to be barred by limitation. 6. It was further submitted by the ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee that the assessee being an agriculturist having income from sale of agricultural produce during the year under consideration and the appellant deposited the same in the bank account and deposits were also made from his personal savings. It was vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel that under this particular facts and circumstances of the matter addition invoking the provision of section 68 of the Act is not sustainable as the same is being done in respect of cash credit. Section 68 specifically applies where any sum is found credited in the books of account of an assessee maintained for any previous year and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation so offered by him in the opinion of the assessing officer is not satisfactory then only the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. As the assessee is an agriculturist, does not maintain any books of account, the provision P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 3594 & 3596/Del/2024 Natthu Singh (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) of Section 68 of the Act is not at all applicable in the case in hand and thus, the addition is not sustainable in the eyes of law as was the crux of the submission made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 7. In support of such submissions he relied upon a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Vijay Kumar Prop. V.K. Medical Hall Vs. ITO (ITA No. 2483/Del/2015, the judgment passed by the ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta Vs. ITO (ITA No. 13/JP/2020, the judgment passed by the ITAT Jodhpur Bench in the case of Neeraj Paliwal Vs. ITO (ITA No. 07 to 11/Jodh/2021). Such submissions made by the Ld. AR has not been able to be controverted by the Ld. DR neither the judgments relied upon as narrated hereinabove having regard to the provision of law laid down under Section 68 of the Act. Thus, the argument advanced by the ld. Counsel found to be acceptable. 8. However, it is an admitted position that the Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the matter on merit but the same can also be decided by ITAT considering the smallness of the amount and to avoid multiplicity of proceeding as further contended by the Ld. AR. He, thus, prayed for deciding the appeal even on merit by the Bench. In this regard he has relied upon the judgment passed by the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Jack Financial Services Private Limited Vs. ITO (ITA No. 2779/Mum/2013). It is noted that again the ld. DR with all his fairness has not raised any objection for deciding the matter on merit by the Bench itself. The judgment relied upon by the Ld. AR in the case Jack Financial Services Private Limited Vs. ITO (supra) has also been considered and it is found that having regard to the smallness of the P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 3594 & 3596/Del/2024 Natthu Singh (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) amount and in order to avoid the multiplicity of the proceeding the appeal was finalized by ITAT itself instead of sending the matters to the file of the authorities below. Today it is also felt that it would serve the interest of justice if the appeal is decided here only. As it is already observed in the foregoing paragraph that the order impugned under Section 147 of the Act, the addition whereupon made under Section 68 of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law, considering the facts and circumstances of the matter the appeal is decided in favour of the assessee quashing the order impugned under Section 147 of the Act as the addition made therein is not sustainable and bad in law. 9. The appeal preferred by the assessee is, thus, allowed. ITA No. 3594/Del/2024 10. As the quantum appeal has been decided in favour of the assessee the instant appeal arising out of the order of penalty dated 10.06.2024 under Section 274(1)(c) of the Act become infructuous and thus, dismissed as infructuous. 11. The assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 3596/Del/2024 is allowed and ITA No. 3594/Del.2024 is dismissed as infructous. Order pronounced in the open on 27.02.2025 Sd/- (Madhumita Roy ) JUDICIAL MEMBER P a g e | 6 ITA Nos. 3594 & 3596/Del/2024 Natthu Singh (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) Dated 27.02.2025 PS: Rohit Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "