SHRIKANT SHARMA, DURG,DURG V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 148/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shrikant Sharma, a farmer and agriculturist, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, which confirmed the addition of Rs.26,03,750 as unexplained cash deposits in his bank account for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was the source of these deposits, which the assessee claimed were from agricultural income. The ITAT noted a procedural delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned based on the assessee's age and health conditions, and the lack of deliberate conduct causing the delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present his case regarding the source of the deposits and directed a thorough re-examination of the facts by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298570 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur, Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; TDS
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.148/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shrikant Sharma Village: Birjhapur, Taluka: Dhamdha, Dist: Durg-491 331 (C.G.) PAN: CAYPS4948D .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 17.04.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 2 Shrikant Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.148/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 23.08.2024 for the assessment year 2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as pointed out by the registry, ITAT, there is delay of 145 days. The Ld. Counsel submitted that actual days of delay is 154 days. This was also conceded by the Ld. Sr. DR. Therefore, it is apparent that the calculation of the days regarding limitation has wrongly been informed to the assessee by the registry. However, condoning the technical defect, I proceed to consider the merits in the condonation petition as well as affidavit filed by the assessee. Referring to the condonation petition, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is 67 years old having heart problem. The assessee is a farmer having no knowledge about the income tax laws. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the said delay was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and it falls within the category of ordinate delay which may therefore be pardoned and the case may be taken up for hearing on merits. 3 Shrikant Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.148/RPR/2025 3. I have considered the condonation petition along with affidavit and it is noted that reasons of delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee, if any. The revenue has not brought on record any evidence to show such act on the part of the assessee where it can be said that the delay of 154 days had occurred due to some deliberate conduct of the assessee neither the revenue has brought on record anything which suggest that the assessee purposively had tried to delay the process of litigation. In this backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I take guidance from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. 4 Shrikant Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.148/RPR/2025 4. That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken in condoning the delay when limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs the substantial justice. In other words, the objective of the court should be to deliver substantial justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the said delay of 154 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 5. That on merits the facts are that the assessee had made cash deposits in his bank account of Rs.26,03,750/-. Since the assessee could not explain the source of such cash deposits, therefore, the A.O added the same in the hands of the assessee which was thereafter confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 5 Shrikant Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.148/RPR/2025 6. In the course of proceedings before the revenue authorities, it has been pointed out by the assessee that he is an agriculturist/farmer and having agricultural income and the source of the cash deposits is from such agriculture proceeds. However, the fact remains that the assessee has neither filed return of income originally nor filed return of income in compliance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Therefore, it was not possible for the department to determine and investigate regarding the source of such cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. It is also the fact that during the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, a remand report was called for wherein the assessee made submissions before the A.O that the assessee has done transaction of shares with a SEBI registered broker and therefore, in the remand report the A.O has mentioned that there arises a doubt whether the cash deposits are from agricultural income or from income received through transaction of shares. 7. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the earlier counsel who was dealing with the matter has wrongly reported before the A.O at the time of remand proceedings by submitting that the assessee dealt with shares through registered broker of SEBI, but the fact remains as has been disclosed in the sworn in affidavit filed by the assessee before the bench that the assessee has never ever made any 6 Shrikant Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.148/RPR/2025 transaction through any broker of SEBI. Rather, the assessee is only having agricultural income. These facts were also accepted by the Ld. Sr. DR. The Ld. Sr. DR could not provide any evidence refuting these facts or could not show that the assessee did transact in shares. 8. In my considered view, in the interest of justice, the factual matrix needs to be revisited through proper verification at the level of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to understand what exactly is the source of income of the assessee. That as has been claimed in the affidavit that the assesse is only having income from agriculture proceeds, these facts needs to be verified. Further, it was contented by the Ld. Counsel that the amount of Rs.26,03,750/- which was deposited in the account of the assessee was not a single transaction. Rather, it is the culmination of small amounts which was regularly deposited in the bank account of the assessee. These are the essential facts whose examination goes to the root of the matter. 9. In my considered view, the assessee deserves one final opportunity before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to properly represent the facts and if required, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall also call for a remand report from the A.O to do the ground verification once again, after being appraised of the proper facts by the assessee. Therefore, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand back the matter to its file for denovo adjudication while complying with the principles of natural 7 Shrikant Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.148/RPR/2025 justice. The assessee is also directed to respond to the hearing notices and represent his case on merits. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall dispose of the matter within 30 days from receipt of this order. 10. As per the above terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 17th day of April, 2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 17th April, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur "