ROHTASH SINGLA JIMMI,PUNJAB V. ITO, WARD 1, BARNALA

ITA 594/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the assessee, Rohtas Singla Jimmi Lekh Raj Moti Lal, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained cash credits. The assessee, who suffers from hearing and speech disabilities, argued that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without a proper hearing and that the notices issued were not adequately communicated due to his disabilities and the negligence of his former accountant. The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal in time due to reasonable and sufficient cause, considering his disabilities and reliance on others for handling his tax matters. The Tribunal emphasized the need for substantial justice over technicalities and decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839754 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: NAGESH BEHL; VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of cross examination
• Section: 147; 148; 68; 69C

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “बी” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE ŵी लिलत क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 594/Chd/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rohtas Singla Jimmi Lekh Raj Moti Lal, Sadar Bazar Barnala, Punjab-148101 बनाम The ITO Ward-1 Barnala, Punjab ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACGPJ2684P अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Nagesh Behl, Advocate (Virtual) राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/02/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23/02/2026 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 25/09/2024 pertaining to Assessment 2015-16. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 142 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for late filing. In the affidavit, the assessee has stated that he is a physically handicapped person suffering from hearing and speech disability since birth and is entirely dependent upon others for handling his income tax matters. It has further been explained that his earlier accountant, who was looking after the tax affairs, left the job and did not inform the assessee regarding the appellate proceedings and, because of his disability, the assessee could not monitor the proceedings and came to know about the appellate order only later when he consulted another person after receipt of subsequent penalty related communication. It has also been submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred Printed from counselvise.com 2 due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and immediately after gaining knowledge, the appeal was filed without further delay. The Ld. Departmental Representative opposed the condonation application but left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. 3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the affidavit filed by the assessee. The reasons stated therein show that the assessee is a differently-abled person and was dependent upon his accountant for compliance of tax matters and, due to the accountant leaving the job and non-communication of proceedings, the assessee could not file the appeal within the prescribed time. These facts constitute a reasonable and sufficient cause preventing the assessee from filing the appeal within limitation. It is a settled legal position that the expression “sufficient cause” under the limitation provisions should be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice and not to defeat it on technical grounds, particularly when no mala-fide intention or deliberate negligence is found. Considering the peculiar facts of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 142 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the law and the facts of the case, Commissioner (Appeals) erred in passing ex-parte order without giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2. That without prejudice to above grounds, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the law and the facts of the case, in so far it is passed without passing order on merits of the case. 3. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021 is void and illegal. a. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021 is void because the notice u/s 148 should have been issued by the FAO and not JAO. b. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021 is void because there were no reasons to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Printed from counselvise.com 3 c. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, order u/s 147 dated 30.03.2022 is void and illegal as assessment order is passed without providing material on the basis of which reasons to believe were formed. d. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, order u/s 147 dated 29.03.2022 is void and illegal as assessment order is passed without providing opportunity of cross examination of the persons whose statement is used against the assessee. e. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO erred in passing assessment order without providing any evidence on the basis of which Ld. AO has concluded the alleged Modus operandi of the transaction, there is neither any statement to this effect nor any documentary evidence. 4. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in not providing copy of the sanction u/s 151 obtained for issue of notice u/s 148 and sanction is void. 5. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in giving very short opportunity of being heard and passing assessment order u/s 144B of the IT Act. 6. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the LD AO erred in making additions u/s 68 of Rs. 83,30,000/- 7. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the LD AO erred in passing assessment order on the basis of report of investigation in which name of the assessee is not stated, in the search operations and subsequent proceedings name of assessee is not stated 8. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the LD AO erred in concluding that contract notes are anti dated as there is no evidence or document on the basis of which the said finding is arrived at. 9. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the LD AO erred in making additions u/s 69C of Rs. 1,66,600/-. 10. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend the aforesaid grounds before disposal of the appeal. 5. Briefly stated, the assessee originally filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 52,190/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and assessment was framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B vide order dated 21.03.2022 wherein the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 95,97,974/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Against the order of the AO the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices fixing the case for hearing; however, the assessee did not furnish submissions or Printed from counselvise.com 4 evidences in support of the grounds raised and the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal and upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) has been passed ex-parte without granting effective opportunity of hearing and without adjudicating the grounds on merits. It was further submitted that the assessee, being a person suffering from hearing and speech disability since birth and dependent upon others for handling income tax matters, could not properly comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore one more opportunity may be granted and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 9. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below, however, did not seriously object if the matter is restored for fresh adjudication subject to conditions. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. From the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is evident that the appeal has been dismissed primarily for non-compliance and not on detailed examination of the issues raised in the grounds of appeal though substantial addition has been made u/s 68 of the Act. It is a settled proposition of law that the first appellate authority being a quasi-judicial authority is required to adjudicate the issues on merits and cannot dismiss the appeal merely for want of prosecution. Further, considering the explanation of the assessee regarding physical disability and dependence on others for handling tax matters, we are of the view that reasonable opportunity deserves to be granted in the interest of substantial justice. 10.1 In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the Printed from counselvise.com 5 entire matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide an adequate and effective opportunity to be heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the appeal afresh by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and furnish all necessary evidence and shall not seek unwarranted adjournments. 10.2 However, considering that the proceedings could not be completed earlier due to non-compliance on the part of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 2,000/-, which the assessee shall deposit in the Poor Patient Relief Fund, PGI Chandigarh within one month from the date of receipt of this order and furnish proof of the same before the Ld. CIT(A). Failure to comply with this direction shall entitle the Ld. CIT(A) to proceed in accordance with law. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/02/2026 Sd/- Sd/- मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल लिलत क ुमार (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ɋाियक सद˟ /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "