ITAT Bangalore: 333-Day Delay Condoned for Senior Citizen Agriculturist; Cash Deposit Addition Remanded for Fresh Examination

Key Facts and Tribunal Findings

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench, condoned a delay of 333 days in filing an appeal by an individual assessee and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in a case involving addition under Section 69A. The assessee, a senior citizen agriculturist, had not filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2017–18 despite depositing ₹15.33 lakh in a bank account. During assessment proceedings initiated under Section 142(1), the assessee failed to explain the source of such deposits. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed a best judgment assessment under Section 144 and treated the entire amount as unexplained income under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE.

The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte on account of non-compliance, with the appellate authority noting that despite multiple notices, no submissions or supporting evidence were furnished by the assessee. Before the Tribunal, the assessee sought condonation of delay, attributing it to serious medical conditions, including Lumbo Sacral Canal Stenosis, which restricted mobility and prevented timely action. The Tribunal accepted the explanation supported by affidavit and medical certificate, holding that sufficient cause existed to condone the delay.

On merits, both parties agreed that the assessee had not effectively represented his case before the lower authorities. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal held that the matter required fresh examination. Accordingly, the ITAT set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be provided and that the assessee furnish all relevant evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits.

Legal Analysis

The Tribunal reiterated that delay in filing appeals can be condoned where sufficient cause is demonstrated, particularly in cases involving genuine hardship such as medical incapacity. It also emphasized that additions under Section 69A must be based on proper examination of explanations and supporting evidence. Where the assessee has not been able to present its case effectively, remand is warranted to ensure adjudication on merits in accordance with principles of natural justice.