IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5049/Del/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 ITA No.5050/Del/2024, A.Y. 2016-17 ITA No.5051/Del/2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Amreen, Income Tax officer, House No.586/11, Ward- 1(1), Near RTO Ka Pul, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Meerut Shastri Nagar, Meerut PAN: ABNPF0317K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellantby Sh. Keshav Garg, Advocate Respondentby Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/02/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA,AM Common grounds and facts arise in the above captioned appeals of the assessee; therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.

2. The appeals for the Assessment Years (hereinafter, the ‘AY’) 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 filed by the assessee are directed against orders dated 13.08.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi [hereinafter, the ‘CIT(A)’].

3. The assessee has challenged the impugned orders on the reasoning that the Ld. CIT(A), by not condoning the delay in filing appeal, has erred in dismissing appeals in limine. The assessee prayed for condonation of delay and adjudication of the cases on merit.

4. The brief facts of these cases are that the assessee, a non-filer (No Income Tax Return has ever been filed.), had substantial credits in her ICICI Bank saving account in the relevant years. The said bank account of the assessee was red-flagged for Suspicious Transactions by the Bank as the assessee was not explaining the transactions in respond to specific queries raised by the Bank Authority. Therefore, the Bank Authority filed the Suspicious Transactions Reports (hereinafter, the ‘STR’) before the designated Authority. The same was marked to the Income Tax Department for enquiry. Based on the information that the assessee, a non-filer of the Income Tax Return(hereinafter, the ‘ITR’), had credits/deposits aggregating to Rs.1,31,25,944/-, Rs.17,35,014/- and Rs.67,73,692/- in her ICICI Bank Account in AY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively, the above- mentioned assessments of the assessee were reopened under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’). During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not ensure any compliance as detailed in the assessment orders. Therefore, the entire credits appearing in the said bank account of the assessee were held as unexplained and taxed accordingly under section 69A of the Act. Consequentially, the assessments were completed at income of Rs. Rs.1,31,25,944/-, Rs.17,35,014/- and Rs.67,73,692/- in AY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.

4.1 Before the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’), the appellant assessee offered the income @ 8% of the gross credits of Rs.1,31,25,944/-, Rs.17,35,014/- and Rs.67,73,692/- in AY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively on the reasoning that the said bank credits were nothing but the business receipts from the trading of cattle during the relevant years. However, the appellant assessee failed to demonstrate the existence of such trading before the AO with corroboratory evidence. Therefore, the AO treated the entire credits as unexplained deposits and taxed the same accordingly. Such bank credits/deposits were not held as business receipts by the AO on the reasoning as detailed in the para-11 of the assessment order.

4.2 Aggrieved, the assessee filed belated appeals before the CIT(A). However, the reasoning given for the belated appeals before the CIT(A) was held unsatisfactory and the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequentially, both appeals were dismissed in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) holding as under:-

“5.1 On going through the reasons, the assessee has stated that her husband was looking after the affairs of the tax matters and he had fever. The documentary