Case Law Details
Puran Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
Introduction: In an appeal case involving Puran Singh and the Income Tax Officer (ITO), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chandigarh has ordered a readjudication. The appellant failed to provide an explanation on certain cash deposits due to his unawareness of a notice served on his counsel’s e-mail ID and uploaded on the e-filing portal.
Analysis: The case concerns cash deposits made by the appellant in the financial year 2010-11, noticed during assessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant was asked to provide an explanation and evidence for the source of these deposits. However, the appellant, a super senior citizen aged 81, was unaware of these notices, which were uploaded on the e-filing portal and sent to his previous counsel’s e-mail ID.
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of a total sum of Rs.27,25,000/- to the income of the appellant under section 69A of the Act due to a lack of explanation on these deposits. The appellant contended that his non-appearance was unintentional and beyond his control, and sought for the delay in filing the appeal to be condoned.
After consideration, ITAT Chandigarh found the delay to be inadvertent and bonafide and condoned it, agreeing to decide the appeal on its merits. The Tribunal directed the file to be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision making after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
Conclusion: The ruling underlines the importance of proper communication in legal proceedings, emphasizing the need for parties involved to be aware of the progress of their cases. It also reinforces the principle of natural justice that parties should be given a fair chance to present their case.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH
This is assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 against the order dated 11.06.2022 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi. The following grounds have been taken :
1. Whether order passed by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is violative of principles of natural justice?
2. Whether addition proposed under section 69A of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, or modify the grounds before the disposal of appeal.
2. It is seen that the Registry has pointed out 216 days’ delay in filing the appeal, for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The contents of the application are reproduced hereunder :
“This is to bring to your notice that assessment proceeding for AY 2011-12 were concluded u/s147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against me and the I filled appeal before Ld. CIT(A) u/s 246A of the Act. The appeal has been decided ex-parte due to non-furnishing of reply. That being a super senior citizen aged 81 years and suffering from health issues. I was under the bonafide impression that all the compliances are duty done by my counsel.
Further, notices were never served to the me and only uploaded on the e-filing portal due to which I was unaware of the notices issued to me and the email id mentioned in the notice doesn’t belong to the me but to prior counsel as mentioned in para no.5 of the Affidavit. Therefore, the non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) was unintentional and beyond my control.
On 03.01.2023 , I came to know about the issue letter for noncompliance to Show-Cause Notice issued in penalty proceedings in the subject year and then after I consulted a new counsel on 16.02.2023 and came to know about the order passed us 250 of the Act dated 11.06.2022 decided to file the Appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench. The Appeal is filed against the aforesaid order only on 14.03.2023 whereas the same was due to be filed on or before 10.08.2022 resulting in delay of 216 days.
That the delay in filing the Appeal is inadvertent and bonafide and it is humbly prayed that the same may kindly be condoned and the Appeal be heard on merits and the affidavit for the same has been filed on 20.04.203. lt is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the delay of 216 days.”
3. After considering the application of the assessee for condonation of delay and affidavit of the assessee, we find that the delay of 216 days in filing the appeal is inadvertent and bonafide. The assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, we condone the delay and the appeal is taken to be decided on merits.
4. The brief facts of the case are that as per information available in NMS data, the assessee had made several cash deposits in UCO Bank, HDFC Bank and Post Office during the Financial Year 2010-11. Proceedings u/s 147 were initiated recording reasons. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act was served by Speed Post dated 30.03.2018 and in response, the assessee filed ITR on 10.10.2018. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire was served online on 01.08.2018. In response, the assessee submitted reply alongwith relevant documents. During assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had made cash deposits in his other bank account and the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposits alongwith documentary evidences. The assessee submitted his reply on 15.10.2018 but Assessing Officer was not satisfied and he required the assessee to give explanation/genuine source of cash deposits, but the assessee never submitted any explanation/documentary proof. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added a total sum of Rs.27,25,000/- to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act.
5. The assessee carried the matter to the CIT(A). Notices u/s 250 of the Act were issued through ITBA Portal to the assessee, but, the case remained unrepresented and the assessee did not file any written submission/explanation about the nature and source of the cash deposit amounting to Rs.27,25,000/- in bank accounts and Post Office. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have found that the assessee, due to his advanced age, and being unaware of the notices issued, which were not served on him, but were uploaded on the e-filing portal at the email Id of his earlier counsel who did not make due compliances, did not appear before Assessing Officer or ld. CIT(A) to produce any explanation/written submission regarding the source of the cash deposit amounting to Rs.27,25,000/- in bank accounts and Post Office. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the file is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A).
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 4th July, 2023.
