2020 (10) TMI 1044 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 308 days and 127 days - Sufficient reason for delay - HELD THAT - Assessee has explained the cause of delay as he was suffering from various diseases and had an attack of paralysis and under treatment for long time. Therefore, at the time of considering the sufficient cause of delay a lenient view ought to have been taken. We condone the delay of 308 days and 127 days respectively in filing these appeals before the ld. CIT(A).

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Addition of ?6,54,434/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
4. Addition of ?69,597/- as undisclosed interest from a savings bank account.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee appealed against the dismissal of his appeals in limine by the CIT(A) due to a delay in filing. The assessee argued that the delay was due to bona fide reasons, including severe health issues like BP, Sugar, and a paralysis attack since July 2015, which required prolonged medical treatment and bed rest. The assessee contended that the original order was never received and that the certified order was received only on 02.02.2017. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) rejected the condonation based on the discrepancy in the service date of the demand notice, which was served on 29.03.2016. The Tribunal took a lenient view, considering the assessee's health issues and prior rulings in similar cases, and condoned the delay, directing the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on merits.

2. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147:
The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings under Section 147, arguing that no notice under Section 148 was ever served. The assessee also claimed that the reasons for reassessment were based on incorrect facts, as a return of income was duly filed under Section 139(1). The Tribunal did not provide a detailed ruling on this issue due to the condonation of delay and remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

3. Addition of ?6,54,434/- under Section 69A:
The assessee contested the addition of ?6,54,434/- under Section 69A, which was held as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee argued that the deposits were from business activities and had been verified and accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this issue, remanding it back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

4. Addition of ?69,597/- as Undisclosed Interest:
The assessee disputed the addition of ?69,597/- as undisclosed interest from a savings bank account, claiming no such entry was found in the bank statement. This issue was also remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

5. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The assessee opposed the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c), arguing that the notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was issued without specifying the limb under which the penalty was sought. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was confirmed without proper service of notice and without any basis. This issue was also sent back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination and decision.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, setting aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanding all issues back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after giving the assessee an appropriate opportunity of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a lenient approach considering the assessee's health conditions and prior Tribunal rulings in similar cases.