TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1633
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned CIT-A is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and in facts by dismissing the appeal as time-barred without allowing sufficient opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay adequately. 3. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant could not submit the explanation for the delay in filing the appeal as It did not occur to the mind of the appellant to explain the condonation of delay. This is because total of three notices were issued, out of which the first two notices did not mention anything to explain about condonation of delay. In the third notice, where the appellant was asked to explain the delay, the appellant did not read it properly and submitted the reply without explaining the reason for the delay, which constituted sufficient cause under section 249(3) of the Act. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, thus denying the appellant the right to be heard on merits and causing grave prejudice against the principles of natural justic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 11. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing." 2. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer received information that despite not having filed a return of income for the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee had made cash deposits in a current account amounting to Rs. 2,09,30,200/-; made cash withdrawals from current account amounting to Rs. 2,07,83,700/- and received TDS on commission or brokerage under section 194H of Rs. 93,396/-. Therefore, invoking the provisions of clause (a) of explanation 2 to section 147, the ld. Assessing Officer held it to be a case where income chargeable to tax was deemed to have escaped assessment and after obtaining the necessary sanction from the competent authority, issued a notice under section 148 to the assessee on 27.03.2021. The assessee did not file any return in response to the notice under section 148. A further opportunity was given to the assessee by way of issue of notice under section 142(1) dated 19.01.2022, but this was also not complied with. A reminder letter was issued for submiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. Aggrieved with the levy of such penalty, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, hereto the ld. CIT(A) observed that the penalty was delayed by nine months without any explanation in this regard and the assessee had also not made compliance to notices issued during the course of appeal asking him to explain the delay. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed at the outset on account of the failure to demonstrate sufficient cause. 6. The assessee is aggrieved with this dismissal of both these appeals and has accordingly come before us. On the appointed date of hearing, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee. However, ongoing through the facts of the case and the grounds of appeal, we observe that the assessee is an individual engaged as a banking correspondent during the year under consideration and renders services to the customers of Bank of Baroda. The assessee was selected for extension of BOB services in the area of Harka Chowk of district Kushi Nagar, U.P. As a business correspondence of the Bank of Baroda, the assessee's role was to accept deposits from BOB customers as well as to make payments to BOB customers on behalf of the Bank of Baroda and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the entire proceedings had been conducted in hurry and this was evident by seeing the dates of notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessee had filed the appeal praying for relief against the excessive addition made. 7. On the other hand, Sh. Sudipto Paul, Sr. DR (hereinafter referred to as the ld. DR) pointed out that the assessee had not made any compliance before either the ld. AO or the ld. CIT(A) and had also not appeared before the Bench. It was submitted that the statement of facts were not backed up by any evidence and therefore, the same should not be believed and the addition should be confirmed in the hands of the assessee. 8. We have duly considered the arguments of the ld. DR and the arguments placed before us by both parties. We note that owing to the fact that the email ID and mobile number given on the portal were not that of the assessee, the assessee could not keep track of the assessment proceedings and furnish any explanation with regard to the cash deposit made into the Bank of Baroda account. After considering this submission of the assessee, it appears that the cash deposits may be on account of deposits by various customers of Bank o....