TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted herewith for ready reference. The said rectification order as passed by th ld. CIT (A) was received by the appellant some-where in May, 2019. On receipt of such rectification order only, the appellant had filed second appeal u/s 253 of the Act in Form No. 36 on 23.7.2019 under the bona-fide belief that the second appeal could be filed within two calendar months from the receipt of the rectification order by the appellant. 2. As the appellant comes from Rampura village of Bhiwadi Town and is fully dependent on his AR to take care of the legal obligations etc. in filing the second appeal etc. in time. His AR Shri Mahesh Chand Agarwal also comes from Bhiwadi Town and has a very little experience in filing the second appeal in the ITAT, Bench and was not fully conversant about the exact time limit of 60 days to file the second appeal in such cases. Thus due to such bona-fide ignorance of the appellant regarding procedure of filing of the second appeal and exact time limit etc, the second appeal could not be filed in time. 4. As the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause due to his bona-fide ignorance on the subject, the appeal could not be filed in time. In the interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore us. 7. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the appellant is a small timer, doing job work of land plough on casual basis with the help of a hired JCB. Thus he was not having any regular source of income and his income had always been below taxable limits. In the circumstances, no return of income was ever filed by him. However, as per information received by the Department that the appellant had deposited Rs. 9 lac in his bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce during the year under consideration, the re-assessment proceedings were initiated u/s 147/148 of the Act on 30.3.2017 to bring this cash deposit in tax-net. The appellant being a layman knew nothing what to do and not to do with such notice. Under such sheer and bona-fide ignorance, he slept over the matter with the hope that the proceedings would pass over automatically as he had no taxable income of any nature. However, in due course of the proceedings, the ld. AO had concluded the re-assessment proceedings ex-parte u/s 144/147 of the Act and added the entire cash deposit of Rs. 9 lac as 'Un- explained Income' vide assessment order dated 7.11.2017. On receipt of such ex-parte order an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the said case the Tribunal noted that the assessee has claimed the utilization of the withdrawals amount only to the extent of the purchase consideration shown in the title document and not actual amount of purchase consideration and further there was a time gap of 2-3 years between the transaction of purchase of land and subsequent deposit in the bank account. Hence the said decision cannot be applied in the case of the assessee." 9. It was further submitted that the appellant is a small timer doing no business and has no regular source of Income. In the circumstances, he could not acquire any moveable or immoveable assets so far in his individual capacity. The appellant was however owning 5/8 share in the ancestral land jointly with his brothers and mother which had been acquired by local RIICO Authorities. In the preceding year i.e. in 2008, the appellant had received compensation amount of Rs. 16,14,382/-from RIICO, Bhiwadi (Alwar) being 5/8 share in the ancestral agricultural land which was acquired by RIICO as per certificate enclosed. The funds so received by the appellant were duly invested in the FDR and on maturity, these funds were lying deposited in the Bank A/c. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight perspective, stands distinguished by the Jaipur Bench itself in the case of Smt. Manish Gaba as discussed above. In the circumstances, the findings of the ld. CIT (A) are factually and legally incorrect and do not hold good and the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- confirmed on the basis of such incorrect and illogical findings deserves to be deleted. 11. Per contra, the ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. It was submitted that there is no dispute that the cash of Rs. 15,20,000/- was withdrawn on 16.04.2009. However, since the cash was subsequently deposited only on 02.03.2010, the explanation of the assessee that he has kept the cash with him for as long as 10 months was not found acceptable and addition so made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the ld CIT(A). It was accordingly submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) and the same should be confirmed. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The limited issue under consideration is whether the assessee has submitted reasonable explanation in support of explaining the source of cash deposit of Rs. 9 lacs in his bank ....