Kyalasanahalli Narayanappa Subramani Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
In the case of Kyalasanahalli Narayanappa Subramani vs. ITO, the ITAT Bangalore addressed an appeal against the CIT(A)’s decision to dismiss an income tax appeal on limitation grounds. The assessee, involved in agricultural activities, had filed an appeal with a 99-day delay, which was initially condoned by the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) later dismissed the appeal citing the time-barred nature of the case. The ITAT found this decision erroneous, emphasizing that once the delay was condoned, the CIT(A) had no authority to dismiss the appeal based on limitation. The assessee’s argument that he was unaware of emails and notices due to his lack of education was accepted as reasonable. The case was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on its merits after providing the assessee an opportunity for a personal hearing. The ITAT partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, highlighting
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 7.5.2024 in respect of the assessment year 2016-17.
2. The assessee is an individual aged about 52 years and doing agricultural activities. The AO made an assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by making an addition of Rs.75,44,398/- as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Against the said proceedings, the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 99 days. The ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and therefore, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before us challenging the said order on the following grounds:
1. The impugned order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances of the case;
2. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs. 75,44,398/- to the returned income of the Appellant under section 68 of the Act;
3. The CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the Learned AO.
4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that there was a reasonable cause in filing the appeal under section 246A belatedly.
5. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the orders against the principles of natural justice.
6. The Learned AO has erred in law and o thank you for processing itself ton facts in not appreciating that bank statement is not considered as books of accounts. Therefore, any sum found credited in the bank passbook cannot be treated Asian unexplained cash credit.
7. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in not considering the explanation of the Appellant with respect to cash deposits into his account; thereby the Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in ignoring submissions clearly justifying cash deposits;
8. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in not considering receipts from business as source of cash deposits;
9. The Learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234A/B/C of the Act;
10. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in raising demand of Rs 33,49,239/- by issue of notice of demand under section 156 of the Act;
11.The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings by issue of notice under section 274 read with section 271 and such other provisions of the Act,
(Total tax effect: Rs. 25,25,867/-)
3. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. filed a paper book by enclosing synopsis as well as the various hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and also copy of ITR filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee being an agriculturist and also not well educated, he was not well versed with the modern technology and therefore, he was not viewed the e-mails, SMSs, etc. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) in his notice dated 27.9.2021 had condoned the delay in filing the appeal but while passing final order, he had rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was time barred. The ld. A.R. further stated that the assessee is having a good case on merits since the agricultural income earned by the assessee was shown in the return and therefore, he contended that further additions made u/s 68 of the Act is unwarranted.
