Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47187 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
07-04-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Judgement Text
" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 880 /RJT/ 2024 ( नधा\u000fरणवष\u000f / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Rathod 8, Karadiya Gyati Vistar, Village Dudana of Kodiar taluka, Dist. Gir, Somnath - 362720 Vs. The ITO, ward-1, Junagadh ITO, Bhootnath Chamber, Opp. Boudin Collage, Junagadh-362001 \u0013थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AWYPR7036H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chetan Aggarwal, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [(in short “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 22.09.2023, which in turn assessment order passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 29.11.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee: 1. Ld. jurisdictional assessing officer erred in law and on facts in finalizing the assessment order without valid service of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 08.02.2018 within the statutory period of relevant assessment year. Page | 2 Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Rathod ITA No. 880/Rjt/2024 (AY 2017-18) 2. Ld. jurisdictional assessing officer finalized the assessment order in violation of principle of natural justice ignoring the explanation tendered in valid explanation: documents placed on record in response to summons u/s. 131 of the Act. 3. The registree of this Tribunal informs that there is a delay of 354 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay support by the affidavit, relevant para contain reasons for the delay, the same is reproduced. Your Petitioner, not so educated, is an agriculturist engaged in the trading of jaggary in small village and his income was below maximum amount not chargeable to tax as such no return of income for the assessment year under consideration was filed. Your Petitioner is not conversant with e-mail or Income-tax portal and wa unaware of existing assessment proceedings, yet in response to summons, requisite details were furnished explaining source of cash deposit during demonetisation period. Your petitioner was unaware of appellate proceedings as well and knowledge of appellate order u/s 250 of the Act dated 22.09.2023 came to notice very recently during subsequent penalty proceedings. The delay in filing appeal u/s 254 of the Act was advertent and innocent mistake due to compelling circumstances. There was no intention to defraud the revenue in any way. Your Petitioner is of the humble opinion that there existed sufficient cause for delay. 4. That the Ld. AR of the assessee also draw out attention towards the judgement passed by the Supreme Court has, in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC). On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal filed after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” Page | 3 Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Rathod ITA No. 880/Rjt/2024 (AY 2017-18) for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone the delay, and admit the appeal and proceed further for hearing. 5. Brief facts of the case that assessee during the demonetization period, the assessee has deposited huge amount in the Dena Bank and from the quantum of cash deposit made by the assessee. That during the summons proceedings, the assessee filed return submission and stated that assessee was engaged in the business of Gol. The assessee also furnished the books of accounts, bank statement, and copy of purchase sales register, copy of stock register etc. on perusal of information received from Dena Bank. It is noted that the assessee deposited total cash of Rs. 18,00,000/-. However, during the demonetization period of Rs. 10,00,000/- was deposited in specific bank note(SPN note). That the assessee failed to filed return of income on the basis of books of account because it is calculated at Rs. 53,74,694/-, and income is estimated at the rate of 8% on total turnover, which comes to Rs. 4,29,980/- and an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- is made u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, total assessed income is 14,29,980/-. 6. That the assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 29.11.2019. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal with following observation: “7.2 As seen form the above screen shots extracted form the assessment order, it is evident that the assessing officer had issued various notices, questionnaires, show-cause notices etc., by giving ample opportunity to the appellant following the principle of natural justice. However, the appellant had not availed the opportunity given by the assessing officer to submit his explanation or documentary evidence with regard to the additions made. Further, during the course of appellant proceedings also, the appellant kept on submitting replied seeking adjournment, rather making written submissions or submitting documentary evidences in support of his grounds of appeal. Page | 4 Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Rathod ITA No. 880/Rjt/2024 (AY 2017-18) 7.3 In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfered in the order of the assessing officer passing u/s. 144 of the IT Act, 1961 for non-compliance of the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, this grounds of appeal no. 4 is required to be dismissed. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.” 7. That the assessee has filed an appeal against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), dated 22.09.2023 before the tribunal. 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not aware about the notices and hearing of the case and requested for one more opportunity should be given to the assessee. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We noted that the several notices have been issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearings of the case. We note that the order of the CIT(A) is silent on service of notices upon the assessee. We further observed that the assessee had not made the compliance with the notices for hearing issued by the Ld. AO. We noted that the assessment was framed u/s. 144 of the I. T. Act by the AO. In interest of justice, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present his case before lower authority, we set aside the order of the Ld. AO and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits. After giving due opportunity to the assessee and the assessee is further directed to submit all the required documents in support of the income earned during the year. Page | 5 Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Rathod ITA No. 880/Rjt/2024 (AY 2017-18) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07 -04-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot \u001bदनांक/ Date: 07 /04/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "
AI Insights
The case involves Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Rathod, an agriculturist and trader of jaggery, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which upheld the assessment order passed by the AO under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 10,00,000 under section 69A of the Act, citing unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee contended that he was unaware of the notices and hearings due to his lack of education and unfamiliarity with digital communication, which led to a delay in filing the appeal. The ITAT found sufficient cause for the delay and admitted the appeal, noting the absence of compliance with procedural requirements and the principle of natural justice in the initial assessments and appeals.
