9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 944 - AT - Income TaxCIT-A dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay of 21 days in filing of appeal - HELD THAT - In the present case it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for the reasons that there was delay in filing the appeal before him. In this regard, the explanation of the assessee is that due to theft in his shop, he remained busy in police enquiry, in support of his claim he furnished the additional evidences which were not before the Ld. CIT(A). The said evidences are a cutting of the news paper wherein the news relating to the theft in the shop of the assessee is published and the copy of the FIR. It is also noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for the reasons that the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence in support of his claim. In the present case, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) occurred due to the involvement of the assessee in police enquiry relating to theft in his shop and his illness. Referring to explanation of the assessee and the principle of natural justice deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh - Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) in limine. 3. Addition of cash deposits in the bank account under the peak theory. 4. Setting aside the case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The Assessee filed an appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh, which was found to be 53 days beyond the limitation period. The Assessee sought condonation of delay, citing reasons related to non-receipt of the appellate order due to a change in address. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, condoned the delay, noting that the Assessee filed the appeal promptly upon receiving the order through a tenant at the old address. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of malafide intent and admitted the appeal. Dismissal of the Appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) in Limine: The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to a delay of 21 days in filing, without finding merit in the Assessee's explanations of theft in the shop and illness causing the delay. The Assessee contended that documentary evidence supporting the delay was not requested by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted additional evidence of a news report and FIR related to the theft. The Tribunal observed that the Assessee's evidence was not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. Addition of Cash Deposits in the Bank Account under the Peak Theory: The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on cash deposits in the Assessee's bank account and made an addition of ?19,93,000 under the peak theory. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the Assessee's appeal. The Assessee argued against the addition, seeking to present additional evidence to support the source of the deposits. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the addition but directed the case to be reconsidered by the Ld. CIT(A) after providing a fair opportunity for the Assessee to be heard and considering the newly submitted evidence. Setting Aside the Case Back to the File of the Ld. CIT(A) for Fresh Adjudication: In light of the Assessee's explanation for the delay and the additional evidence provided, the Tribunal set aside the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of affording the Assessee a fair opportunity to present their case and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law, taking into account the newly furnished evidence. This detailed analysis covers the issues of condonation of delay, dismissal of the appeal, addition of cash deposits, and the direction to reconsider the case, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment.
|
