Yogesh Kumar U.S. ORDER
Yogesh Kumar U.S., Member (J)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/03/2019 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ghaziabad, hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] for Assessment Year 2009-10.
2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal:-
"1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law, on facts and in surrounding circumstances in dismissing the appeal in limine, in a cursory and summary manner without discussing the merits of appeal leading to injustice to the hapless appellant.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in failing to appreciate that no penalty proceedings are liable to be initiated/finalised during the pendency of quantum appeal.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in failing to appreciate that the penalty is imposable either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income and consequently the imposition of impugned penalty for both limbs by Ld. A.O. tantamounts to violation of statutory provisions of section 271 (1)(c) of I.T. Act.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in ignoring the fundamental error in impugned assessment order and penalty notice, having no indication as to for which limb, the penalty proceedings are proposed to be initiated.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law, on facts and in surrounding circumstances in failing to consider the issue of condonation of delay with empathically pragmatically, resulting in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in failing to provide adequate opportunity of hearing coupled with opportunity of explaining the so called minor defects so cited in impugned appellate order.
7. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in failing to appreciate that mere issuance of notices, without ensuring valid service as per law is nothing but an exercise in futility having no legal sanctity.
8. That without prejudice to above, the appellant will file application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal at the time of hearing.
9. That the appellant craves leave to modify/amend or add any one or more grounds."
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the information has been received that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 35,60,000/- to his savings bank account during the Financial Year 2008-09. Notice u/s. 148 was issued but the assessee has not apply to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thereafter notice u/s. 142(1) were issued and no compliance was made to the said notices. The said assessment order came to be passed u/s. 147/144 of the Act on 26/10/2016, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 35,60,000/- and simultaneously notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was also issued. The penalty order came to be passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on 27/04/2017 by imposing penalty of Rs. 11,02,400/-.
4. As against the penalty order dated 27/04/2017, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Since the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed a delay of 8 months, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground of delay in latches. As against the order dated 26/03/2019, the assessee has preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above.
5. There is a delay of 2 months in filing the present appeal, the assessee has pleaded by way of an affidavit for condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee could not file the appeal on time du........