Delay in filing appeal condoned as assessee was not a tech savvy, did not see notice in email

Delay in filing appeal condoned as assessee was not a tech savvy person and could not see notice sent to email mentioned in Form No. 35

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3730 (2023) (05) ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming the addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unexplained money towards cash seized from the assessee.

The assessee was an individual and derived income from business and other sources. The assessee filed his return and claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act.

The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was intercepted by the Surveillance Team while travelling in a car and was found carrying large amount of cash during the course of observance of Election Code of General Elections in the State.

The returning Officer informed the cash found to the Income Tax Department. Since the assessee had not produced any documentary evidence and relevant sources to substantiate the cash found in his possession, the same was surrendered to Income Tax Department and the cash was seized u/s 132A of the Act. The seized cash was deposited into Personal Deposit Account of the Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX.

During the assessment u/s 153A, the assessee claimed that the amount was carried by him to hand over the same to the labour contractor but the labour contractor did not turn up.

However, the AO disbelief the submission of the assessee as baseless and incoherent. Also, the AO found many flaws in the layout copy submitted.

The AO arrived at the conclusion that the cash seized was unaccounted and undisclosed in the books of account and the statements put forth by the assessee were a mere afterthought.

As a result, the Assessing Officer completed the u/s 143(3) by making addition u/s 69A of the Act of the seized cash to the total income of the assessee.

Since the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT (A) despite a number of opportunities granted, the CIT(A) in the ex-parte order passed by him sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Before the Tribunal the assessee submitted that due to non-receipt of notices sent by the CIT (A), he could not appear before him for which he has passed the ex-parte order.

The Tribunal observed that it was submitted by the assessee that the notices were sent through e-mail as mentioned in Appeal Form No. 35 and since the assessee is not a tech savvy person, he could not access the mail for which he could not attend before CIT(A). 

The Tribunal further noted that it was also the submission that if the assessee be given an opportunity, he will be in a position to substantiate his case before the CIT(A).

Thus, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee. At the same time, the ITAT levied a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee for his negligence in appearing before the learned CIT(A).

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court
• High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA
• Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it
• Lokayukta Police not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005 – SC
• Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST