TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1075
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndling the case, unfortunately passed away due to COVID-19, resulting in non-appearance and non-compliance with hearing notices. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) did not verify whether the notices were duly served to the appellant but proceeded to dismiss the appeal in an arbitrary manner. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the appellant is a senior citizen with limited knowledge of tax matters and that the delay in compliance was due to genuine and reasonable causes beyond his control. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the case on merits instead of passing an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts by holding that the appellant has concealed income of Rs. 1,50,558/- received as pension and Rs. 64,065 received as interest income while the same was duly explained during the assessment proceedings. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld AO have erred in law and on facts holding that the appellant has concealed income of Rs. 60,958/- whereas the same was duly explained during the assessment proceedings. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld AO have erred in law and on facts by treating amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liberate or intentional delay. 8. That it is a settled principle of law that substantive justice should prevail over procedural technicalities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that liberal interpretation should be applied while condoning the delay in genuine cases. 9. That the appellant has a strong prima facie case on merits and is likely to succeed in appeal. If the delay is not condoned, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. Prayer: In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appellant most humbly prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same in the interest of justice. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR stated that reasons advanced are not sufficient to condone the delay of as many as 378 days in the present case. However, prayed that the bench may decide the issue as deem fit in the interest of justice. 5. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. The bench noted that counsel of the assessee who was handling the appeal work of the assessee was passed away in the covid-19 pandemic and therefore, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntary evidence for the contention raised. The contention of receipt of money in marriage as gift was not considered in absence of the evidence. Further the contention that the amount was received by son and given to the assessee which was deposited by the assessee himself in his account was also not considered because his son was also assessed to tax and having his own bank account. The cash deposited was converted into FDRs and therefore, the explanation of the assessee was considered as baseless. Ld. AO also considered the fact that those FDRs were ultimately given to his sons does not explain the source of cash deposit. Therefore, cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- was considered as unexplained cash credits and was added as income of the assessee. Ld. AO also added interest income of Rs. 64,065/- and Rs. 60,958/- as unexplained credits and thereby against salary head income of Rs. 1,50,558/- income was determined at Rs. 12,75,581/-. 7. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: "3.4. I have perused the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....explanation was called for by the AO and the air of the assessee submitted various documents in support of the claim of the assessee. However, the AO was not fully satisfied with the explanation provided during assessment and made an addition of Rs 10,00,000/- on this account. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced below for ready reference: 7.3 The submission given by the AR is considered but not found verifiable on the following reasons:- i) That no supporting documentary evidences have been filed in regard to claim. ii) The claim of assessee regarding receipts of a huge amount as marriage gift is not acceptable considering the facts of the case and in absence of the any documentary evidences. iii) Further, the claim that the amount was received by son and given to the assessee which was deposited by assessee himself in his account, is not acceptable facts considering that the son was also assessed to tax and was having is own bank account (iv) It is very surprising facts that the cash receipts claim to be marriage gift was utilized by the assessee in making FDRs. This fact is clearly evident that in both the instan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of his services at the Indian Railways. The source of earnings of the appellant is only of pension from Indian Railways. The appellant being a senior citizen and from non-taxation background, was non-conversant with information technology. 2. The appellant was having pension and interest income below the taxable limits throughout the period, hence, he was not well versed with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant was issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 30/03/2017 by Ld. AO for charging income tax on the escaped assessed income within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13. On 12/09/2017, notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to produce a Source of income, copy of IT return filed with Computation of total income, copy of audit report with all enclosures, evidence regarding Deduction claims under Chapter VI of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Copy of all Bank statements for the relevant period, and Source of Cash deposited and Credit entries. The assessee complied with the aforesaid notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 through an Authorized ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04.2011 with State Bank of India (SBI) 5,00,000 5. Cash Deposited dated 28.07.2011 with Allahabad Bank 5,00,000 Total Income 12,75,580/- 8. Appeal filed before CIT(A) Income Tax Department on 16.04.2018 and the CIT (A) order was passed on 21/11/2023, DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058106844(1). The order stated that the appellant has failed to produce any material to controvert the findings of the Ld. AO. No evidence was furnished during appellate proceeding and despite several opportunities being provided. The CIT (A) order also stated that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal so have no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. AO. The appeal is dismissed. 9. The appellant could not participate in the appellate proceedings due to a Bonafide reason (death of the appellant's authorized representative) and as the mail id on which the notices were sent also belonged to the A/R of the appellant. 10. It was only when notice dated 16.01.2025 under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was served upon the appellant on his registered address, upon which he consulted to a Tax Consultant, and came to know ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of hearing. The principles of natural justice mandate that no adverse order should be passed without granting the appellant a fair opportunity to present its case. The appellant's authorized representative, who was handling the case, unfortunately passed away due to COVID-19. This unforeseen and tragic event resulted in non-appearance and non-compliance with hearing notices, which was entirely unintentional and beyond the appellant's control. It is a settled principle of law that an order passed without providing a fair opportunity of hearing is not justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that the right to be heard is a fundamental aspect of justice. The appellant respectfully submits that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] erred in dismissing the appeal without verifying whether the hearing notices were duly served upon the appellant. This action amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT (A) arbitrarily dismissed the appeal without ascertaining whether the notices were properly delivered to the appellant. The appellant was deprived of an opportunity to present its case due to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of Rs. 64,065/- (Rs. 45,649 from State Bank of India and Rs. 18,416 from Allahabad Bank) and no other income during the A.Y. 2012-13. The appellant did not file a return of income for the relevant assessment year since the total income (Rs. 2,14,623/-) was below the basic exemption limit, which was Rs. 2,50,000, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant's total income, consisting of pension and interest income, was below the basic exemption limit as prescribed under the Income Tax Act. As per section 139(1), an individual is required to file a return of income only if the total income after deductions exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. Since the appellant's income was below this threshold, there was no legal requirement to file a return. The entire income was derived from disclosed sources, namely pension and Bank interest, which are traceable through Banking channels. Therefore, the finding of concealment is completely unjustified. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant concealed income without considering the fact that the appellant had no taxable income requiring the filing of a return. The addition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of section 69A can be attracted in this case. As per provision of section 69A, if person neither required nor maintaining any books of account, shall only explain the source of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article received, in this respect assessee has duly explained all the source of amount so deposited. It is also important to mention the following points in support of the argument that the cash deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/ out the gifts received at the time of marriage is not unexplained money: 1) The appellant was not carrying on any activity in the nature of business or trade and was only dependent on the pension income received by him. 2) The amount was deposited in the bank account out of the cash gifts received on the occasion of his son's marriage and that the same was explained to the Ld AO during the assessment proceedings. 3) The amount deposited in the bank account did not represent any income to him at all, further this amount on maturity, was transferred to his son through RTGS on 29.04.2016, as also examined and confirmed to the Ld AO. 4) The receipt of cash gifts during the time of marriage is a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to remain sick and the responsibility was given to his elder son. This amount was then paid to his son on 29.04.2016, as also examined and confirmed during assessment, which is duly recorded by the Ld AO in his order. 3) The gifts have been received from relatives as defined u/s 56(2)(vi), which is exempted under the Income Tax Act, no dispute has been raised to the fact that the sister-in-law of the assessee does not have a sufficient source of income. 4) The appellant has duly explained the nature and source of both transactions, supported by Bank records and confirmation from the relevant persons. 5) The Ld. AO and CIT(A) have not rebutted the evidence submitted, nor have they provided any basis to disregard the explanation given. The additions made are arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. As the Ld AO has made the addition on the basis of mere suspicion, we would like to rely on the judgment passed by the Honorable Supreme Court in the following cases: In the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the AO cannot complete the assessment purely on guess and w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submitted another affidavit of Mrs. Indu Mendiratta confirming the gift and thereby he submitted that the contention raised for deposit of Rs. 10 lac stands duly supported by an affidavit. Ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the ld. AR of the assessee who was dealing with this matter in the assessment and filed the first appeal. In the meanwhile, on account of Covid-19 that consultant was expired and therefore, the proceedings before ld. CIT(A) were not attended and could not place on record the relevant material to strengthen the contention already on record. Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued and submitted that whatever contentions recorded in the order of Assessing Officer and in furtherance to that assessee filed an his affidavit and that of Smt. Indu Mendiratta for the gifts. Ld. AR of the assessee in furtherance to the contention so raised also filed an affidavit that the sources of money for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- contended before the ld. AO was sourced from the money received at the time of marriage ceremony of his Son Sh. Samir Chugh younger son of the assessee who got married. The assessee in support of that contention and in furtherance to the content....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., necessary reasons were recorded and after obtaining approval of Addl.CIT, Range-7, Jaipur on 29.03.2017, the case was re-opened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2017 and served upon the assessee. Ld. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) on 12.09.2017 and other statutory notices. In response the assessee attended from time to time and furnished written submission with a copy of bank statements and other required details / documents which were verified and placed on record by the ld. AO. The assessee is a retired person from Indian Railways and getting pension. While assessment proceedings, the AR of the assessee has stated that assessee being a senior citizen and his total income was less than the basic exemption limit during the said financial year, return of income was not filed. Even the assessee has neither filed ROI in response to the notice issued u/s 148 nor furnished any computation of total income. Based on that set of facts ld. AO considered the pension income and interest income as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. Considering the overall material facts of the case since the assessee is retired government employee his pension income cannot be considered a....