Abani Ranjan Maity Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Delay of 75 Days Condoned—Uneducated Assessee Relied on Negligent Consultant; Ex-Parte 144 Assessment & Additions u/s 69/69A Restored for Fresh Hearing
For AY 2013-14, the Assessee filed return declaring ₹4,13,519. The AO reopened the case u/s 147 and issued notice u/s 148 on 19.03.2020. There was no compliance to this or to subsequent 142(1) notices. A final show-cause dated 13.09.2021 also went unanswered, and the AO completed assessment ex-parte u/s 144, making heavy additions:
- ₹50,00,000 treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 (property purchase),
- ₹44,95,000 treated as unexplained money u/s 69A (cash deposits).
In appeal, there was 75-day delay. The Assessee submitted that the assessment order was received only by email, he is uneducated, not conversant with English or computers, and fully depended on his tax consultant, who failed to act. An affidavit of the consultant admitting his lapse was filed.
CIT(A) refused to condone delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without examining merits.
Before ITAT, the Bench observed that both the Assessee and his consultant had filed affidavits clearly admitting the circumstances leading to non-compliance and delay. Since the additions were substantial and arose only due to lack of evidence, and the explanations were credible, the Tribunal held that justice required one effective opportunity.
Accordingly, ITAT:
