SAYEEDA AKHTER M/S S A TRADERS CHOPRA SHOP GARHI UDHAMPUR,UDHAMPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD UDHAMPUR 103 WARD NO 10 DHAR ROAD UDHAMPUR, UDHAMPUR

ITA 501/ASR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sayeeda Akhtar, the appellant, who filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed her appeal in limine due to a significant delay of 782 days in filing the appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was related to unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 2.75 crores in the appellant's bank account, which were added to her income under section 68 of the Act. The Income Tax Officer had initially assessed her income at Rs. 2.79 crores, including the unexplained deposits, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 93.90 lacs for tax evasion. The appellant contested the delay in the first appellate authority, which was not admitted for adjudication on merits due to the procedural delay. The Tribunal found that the interest of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the first appellate authority to allow the appellant to explain the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847171 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Amritsar
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 68

Judgement Text

"D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 501/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Sayeeda Akhtar M/s S.A. Traders, Chopra Shop, Garhi, Udhampur 182121 Jammu & Kashmir [PAN: AIAPA 9001H] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Udhampur, 103 Ward 10, Dhar Road, Udhampur, J & K 180002 (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D. R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 19.02.2026 23.03.2026 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 04.06.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforth the Act) which has emanated from the penalty order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 07.09.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. No. 501/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2. There are five grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 and the main grievance of the assessee is that the ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal in limine without admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits because of delay of 782 (seven hundred eighty-two) days in filing the appeal. 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has filed his regular return disclosing a total income of Rs. 3.36 lacs. In course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to explain the source of cash deposit in bank account amounting to Rs. 2.75 crores and in absence of any reply to various notices issued by the AO, the assessment has been completed on a total income of Rs. 2.79 crores (including the cash deposit of Rs. 2.75 crores u/s 68 of the Act). Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) initiated in the course of assessment proceedings has been imposed vide order dated 07.09.2022 @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded being Rs. 93.90 lacs. 4. The matter carried in the first appeal has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) refusing to admit the same for adjudication on merits because of delay of 782 (seven hundred eighty-two) days without any satisfactory explanation given by the assessee. 5. Now, the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee before the Tribunal is that the ld. CIT(A) before refusing to admit the appeal to adjudicate the matter on merits on account of delay, u/s 249 (3) should have allowed an opportunity to the assessee to Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. No. 501/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 explain the reasons or ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay and in this instant case, no such opportunity has been allowed by the appellate authority. 6. As such, he prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) so that the assessee may be allowed an opportunity to prove ‘sufficient cause’ before the ld. first appellate authority to his full satisfaction. 7. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that the delay of 782 days is a long delay and we find that the interest of justice will be served if the matter is remanded back to ld. first appellate authority to allow an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay with sufficient reasons, to the satisfaction of the ld. first appellate authority, and thereafter, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, then the matter may be decided on merits of the case with respect to the ground of appeal contained in Form No. 35. 9. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all issues are left open. Printed from counselvise.com 4 I.T.A. No. 501/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 23.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Krinwant Sahay) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order Printed from counselvise.com "