The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, recently imposed a cost on an appellant and directed her to deposit the same on Prime Minister’s Relief Fund (PMRF), owing to the appellant’s lack of diligence in filing appeal.
The background of the matter arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ‘s [CIT(A] dismissal of the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant, whereby she challenged the initial assessment order relating to assessment year 2017-18.
In the Initial assessment, The total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 1,40,94,687 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA). During the assessment, a sum of Rs. 1,36,34,920 deposited in the assessee’s bank account was considered unexplained by the Assessing Officer (AO) as the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentation, such as a cash book and cash flow statements to justify the deposits.
Accordingly, the AO made the addition of a sum of Rs. 1,36,34,92/- under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of ITA and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1).
Aggrieved, the assessee appealed against this before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal, as it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation as well as due to the assessee’s non appearance.
Aggrieved again, the assessee appealed before ITAT against the CIT (A)’s dismissal of the initial appeal.
Before the tribunal, the assessee’s Counsel argued that the delay in filing of the appeal was due to the lack of communication with her previous advocate and requested for the condonation of the same.
The assessee also asked for a fresh opportunity to present evidence before the AO to justify the source of the deposits, arguing that they can be justified by furnishing evidence for the commission the assessee used to receive from time to time. As for the non appearance, the assessee attributed it to her old age.
Revenue’s Counsel opposed the condonation of delay and maintained that the assessee failed to provide necessary documents during the initial assessment.
The bench of Mr Kamlesh Rathod Jayantbhal and Mr Narinder Kumar, after observing the facts of the appeal, condoned the delay in filing the appeal considering the old age and circumstances of the assessee.
The case was remanded to the AO to allow the assessee another opportunity to present her case with appropriate documentation.
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without fully considering the material produced by the assessee or the reasons for her non-appearance. The tribunal however also imposed a cost of Rs. 8,000 on the assessee to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund for her lack of due diligence in filing the appeal, as there was no evidence to suggest that she put effort to communicate with her advocate regarding the matter.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
