SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH,ETAWAH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

ITA 91/AGR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Satyendra Kumar Singh against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 69A, 147, and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. These additions pertained to unexplained cash deposits, undisclosed salary, and undisclosed interest income in the assessee's bank account for the assessment year 2013-14. The appeals were initially dismissed for non-prosecution, leading to the current proceedings where the Tribunal found procedural lapses in the appellate process and remitted the case back for a detailed examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396762 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAILENDRA SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA SHARMA; MANUJ SHARMA
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 90 & 91/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Satyendra Kumar Singh, Vill. Nagla Gaja, Post Sarawa, Etawah (UP). Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), Etawah. PAN : CDMPS9375M (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER Per:Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member: Both these appeals have been preferred by assessee against the separate impugned orders each dated 18.01.2024 passed in Appeals No. NFAC/2012-13/10104584 and NFAC/2012-13/10104583 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year [AY] 2013-14, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has Assessee by Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Advocate & Sh. Manuj Sharma, Advocate Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.05.2025 ITA No. 90 & 91/Agr/2025 2 | P a g e dismissed assessee’s first appeals for non-prosecution, confirming the addition of Rs.11,31,000/- made u/s. 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit in assessee’s bank account, addition of Rs.3,04,874/- made as undisclosed salary credited to the same bank account, addition of Rs.15,880/- as undisclosed interest income by the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 20.09.2021 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals) has also confirmed consequential penalty of Rs.2,73,490/- imposed by the Assessing Officer, vide penalty order dated 21.03.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Perused the records and heard the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee and the ld. Departmental representative for the Revenue. 3. At the very outset, ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that these appeals have been filed on 21.02.2025 against impugned orders each dated 18.01.2024 by a delay of about 340 days. Ld. AR of the assessee has, in accordance with the condonation applications, submitted that the appellant/assessee, being a police constable engaged in strict duties outside and not maintaining computer etc., was unaware of the impugned order/notices of the ld. CIT(Appeals). It was in the month of January, 2025 when he was posted at Prayagraj in Kumbh Mela, the appellant contacted his counsel and took immediate steps to file the ITA No. 90 & 91/Agr/2025 3 | P a g e appeals. Assessee has also filed his affidavit in support of delay condonation application. Prayed to condone the delay as not being intentional. 4. The facts deposed in the affidavit are uncontroverted. Hence, in the interest of justice, we find sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing these appeals. We condone the delay accordingly caused in filing both these appeals. 5. Since both these appeals are interlinked to each other, inasmuch as the penalty proceedings in question are based on the additions made in assessment order u/s. 147 of the Act, both the appeals are being decided by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 6. Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the impugned orders have been passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), ex parte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Prayed to set aside the impugned orders. 7. Learned DR has submitted that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(Appeals) on various occasions, but for no avail. Learned DR has supported the impugned order. ITA No. 90 & 91/Agr/2025 4 | P a g e 8. Perusal of the impugned orders shows that during the appellate proceedings against the assessment order and penalty proceedings, the appellant/assessee was issued separate notices by the first appellate authority on 29.12.2023 and 05.01.2024, which remained un-responded by the assessee. Such an irresponsive conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated. It is however noticed that learned CIT(Appeals) has passed ex-parte impugned orders without any discussion on the merits of the cases, whereas learned CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matters back to the files of learned CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits. We order accordingly. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(Appeals) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee shall refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say that learned CIT(Appeals) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. Both the appeals are liable to be allowed accordingly. ITA No. 90 & 91/Agr/2025 5 | P a g e 9. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned orders each dated 18.01.2024 are set aside. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.05.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra "