Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 102822 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-04-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Judgement Text
" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2015/Ahd/2024 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shailesh Kumar Ishwarbhai Patel Gandhi Pole, Vaherakhadi, Anand, Gujarat - 388365 बनाम/ Vs. The ITO Ward 1, Anand èथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AUHPP1709Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : Ms. Arti Shah, AR. Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 25/04/2025 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 30.09.2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013- 14. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal by the assessee are as under: “1. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and facts of the case by not condoning the bona-fide and genuine delay caused in filling appeal before him. The CIT(A) also erred in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard during the course of hearing which voids the principles of natural justice and therefore may please be set-aside. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) also erred in law and facts of the case by not deciding the case on merit apropos addition of Rs. 19,81,899/- u/s. 69A of the Act and also failed in considering ITA No. 2015/Ahd/2024 [Shailesh Kumar Ishwarbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 2 – factual and legal integrity of the appeal filed before him. Since the appellant had filed submissions before the assessing officer, the learned CIT(A) ought to have taken those submissions into account when deciding the case. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) reveals that the assessee’s appeal before him was dismissed as non-maintainable on account of the delay in filing of appeal before him which was not condoned. The delay was of 55 days and the Ld.CIT(A) did not accept the assessee’s explanation of the delay being attributable to the fact that he became aware of the passing of the CIT(A)’s order at a later date. The CIT(A), I find, obtained a report from the concerned Assessing Officer regarding the date of service of order who stated that the order had been served on the same day on which it was passed, on the email ID which was found to be mentioned in the form of appeal filed to the Ld.CIT(A) also. 4. A glaring fact in the order passed by the CIT(A) is that after obtaining the report of the AO on the date of service of order to the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) did not confront the same to the assessee and went on to discard the assessee’s explanation for the delay in filing of appeal and accordingly dismiss the assessee’s appeal as non-maintainable. 5. The statement of facts, which accompanied Form No.35 filed to the CIT(A) reveal that the assessee had stated the reason for the delay in the filing of appeal as the assessment order not being issued and served to the assessee and the assessee becoming aware of the passing of the assessment order only on receipt of show cause notice issued for levying penalty on the ITA No. 2015/Ahd/2024 [Shailesh Kumar Ishwarbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 3 – assessee in terms of provision of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. That immediately thereafter the assessee contacted the Jurisdictional Officer, collected the order from him and filed the appeal to the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 55 days. 6. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the reason for the delay by furnishing the explanation of the assessee in this regard on a duly sworn affidavit contending that the assessee is an old aged person who had listed the email ID of his Accountant to the tax authorities and since his Accountant did not inform him of the passing of the assessment order, he was unaware of the said fact. Further, perusal of the assessment order passed reveals that the AO had reopened the case of the assessee on the basis of information that there was cash deposited to the tune of Rs.42,63,000/- in his bank account during the impugned year and no return of income had been filed by the assessee also. Subsequently, assessment was completed determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.19,81,899/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us contended that the assessee had submitted to the AO that he was an agriculturist cultivating 12 vighas of ancestral agricultural land and did not carry out any business activity and the cash deposits in his bank account was attributable to his agricultural income and his savings therefrom. It was pointed out that the summary of the cash flow during the year had been submitted to the AO accompanied with copies of sale invoice of agricultural produce and 7/12 & 8A land records. It was contended that the AO had not properly appreciated the contention of the assessee while treating the cash deposits of Rs.19,81,899/- as from unexplained sources. ITA No. 2015/Ahd/2024 [Shailesh Kumar Ishwarbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 4 – 7. Considering all of the above and noting the fact that the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was of very small period of 55 days, for which, the assessee has given an explanation on affidavit and the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s explanation without affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and moreover, considering the fact that the assessee has stated to be an agriculturist only carrying out no other business activities and has an explanation to offer for the cash deposit in his bank account, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to restore the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) to re-consider the application of the assessee seeking condonation of delay and, thereafter if considered fit to entertain the assessee’s appeal and decide the same on merits. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced on 25/04/2025 Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 25/04/2025 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंͬधत आयकर आयुÈत / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुÈत(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "
AI Insights
The case involves Shailesh Kumar Ishwarbhai Patel, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which dismissed his appeal as non-maintainable due to a 55-day delay in filing. The delay was attributed to the appellant's unawareness of the CIT(A)'s order, as he relied on his accountant to inform him, and the accountant failed to do so. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not adequately consider the appellant's explanation for the delay and did not provide an opportunity for the appellant to be heard regarding the delay. The ITAT also noted that the appellant had provided substantial evidence regarding the source of the cash deposits in question, which the Assessing Officer had not properly considered.
