MOHAMMED OMER ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -9(2) , HYDERABAD

O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for the Asst. Year 2017-18 arise from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dt.16.03.2021 passed in case No. ITBA / NFAQC / S / 250 / 2020-21 / 1031509000(1) involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 ITA 359/Hyd/2021 2. I notice at the outset that assessee's instant appeal suffers form 86 days delay in filing. Learned counsel submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic covid 19 unable to get the documents form the department which caused the impugned delay in filing of the instant appeal. Case law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17th Dec., 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. I accordingly hold that assessee's impugned delay of 86 days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond his control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

3 ITA 359/Hyd/2021 4. Learned department representative fails to dispute that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have considered the assessee's foregoing trading receipts / business income and turnover reconciliation vis-à-vis cash deposits in issue. I, therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant assessee's sole substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification in above terms. It is made it clear that the assessee’s only shall file all the corresponding details at his own risk and responsibility in consequential proceedings to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing.