SATYAVIR SINGH,DIST- G.B.NAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 5.3.3, NODA

ITA 333/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Satyavir Singh against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had earlier dismissed his appeal due to delay in filing. The primary issue in dispute was the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 to the assessee's income, which was attributed to unexplained cash deposits in his bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) had passed an exparte order, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds without addressing the merits. The assessee explained that the source of the cash deposit was from a compensation received and a partial refund of a loan given to a friend, supported by relevant documents. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanations and directed a fresh examination of the case by the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314707 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHYAM MANOHAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 333/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Satyavir Singh, vs. ITO, Ward 5(3)(3) Vill – Bhatta, Post – Dankaur, Sector-24, Noida Distt- G.B. Nagar-203201, Uttar Pradesh (PAN: BBMPS0188M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ajay Aggarwal, CA Respondent by : Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.05.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067070646(1), order dated 26.7.2024 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 112 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and also there was a delay of 213 days in filing the before the Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, assessee has filed the Application alongwith affidavit for Condonation of Delay supporting with his Affidavit stating therein the delay was occurred due to the reasons that assessee is a senior citizen aged about 75 years residing in rural area, retired from Primary School in 2012 and almost illiterate, his source of income is from small pension and agriculture income and his wife is suffering from serious disease cancer in liver and he is not aware of the 2 | P a g e technology, which resulted, the filing of belated appeal. Hence, it was requested to condone the disputed delay before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, I find that reasonable reason has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeals, before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal, hence, I condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. CIT(A) and proceeded further. 4. Brief facts of the case are that AO made the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of cash deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the State Bank of India during the year under consideration by passing an exparte order. AO noted that ample opportunities were given, but assessee failed to explain the source of income as well as regarding credit entries made by the assessee in his saving bank account. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing the appeal. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 2.8.2010 in the State Bank of India and the source of the same was duly explained, as the same withdrawal was from Punjab National Bank of Rs. 6,50,000/- on 21.6.2010 from their account which was received from compensation on 18.6.2010 credited into the same PNB account and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was received as cash refund from Sh. Narender Kumar on 26.7.2010, which the assessee had lent Rs. 10 lacs to him on 13.7.2010 by banking channel drawn on Punjab National Bank, which was refunded partially by Sh. Narender Kumar. To support his aforesaid contention, he filed the relevant documents / evidences. Ld. DR did not raise any objection to the aforesaid contention. 3 | P a g e 6. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, I find that AO has passed the exparte order and Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing the appeal, without going into the merits of the case. As narrated above, the assessee has explained the source of cash deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which fact was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, in view of the factual matrix, as aforesaid and in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to consider and examine the aforesaid contention of the Assessee alongwith supporting documents and evidences, if any, and then decide the issues in dispute afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assesee, in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07.05.2025. SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench "