The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to consider the reasons for the delay in filing an appeal after it was dismissed due to a 208-day delay.
Balappa Hanamantappa Nandeppanavar,appellant-assessee,filed his return on 03.12.2009 showing Rs.53,070. Following the ITAT’s order, the Assessing Officer (AO) reassessed the income on 19.05.2022 at Rs.1,075,422, adding Rs.9,89,114 for a cash deposit of Rs.15,38,600 in his Corporation Bank account.
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of 208 days but did not submit a request for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the delay was significant and no condonation request was filed, which was required to proceed. As no explanation was provided for the delay, the appeal was dismissed without considering the merits.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
The assessee, dissatisfied with the order, appealed before the tribunal. The counsel argued that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal due to a 208-day delay without asking for reasons. The assessee had mentioned in Form 35 that the explanation for the delay would be submitted at the hearing, but no opportunity was given.
On merits, the only addition was Rs.989,114 for an unexplained cash deposit of Rs.1,538,600. The CIT(A) granted some relief, but the dispute remained. The ITAT had remanded the case, and the assessee provided land records but could not show agricultural income.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
The assessee also claimed Rs.1,140,000 cash returned for a borewell rig advance should be considered as a source, but the assessing officer didn’t accept it due to lack of proof. Similarly, Rs.438,600 from bank withdrawals should also be credited as a source.
Finally, the agricultural income of the joint family should be considered. The assessee argued that the addition of Rs.989,114 was unjustified.
The two member bench comprising Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) and Prashant Maharishi(Vice President) reviewed the rival contentions and the lower authorities’ orders. It observed that the assessee filed the appeal 208 days late, acknowledging the delay in Form No. 35 and stating the reasons would be provided at the hearing. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for not including a condonation request.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
The tribunal held that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to explain the delay. The CIT(A) failed to provide this opportunity, which was essential for proper consideration. The tribunal stressed that substantial justice should outweigh technicalities and directed the assessee to submit a petition explaining the delay, for which the CIT(A) should give due consideration.
In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
