VISHNUDAS JAGANNATH BIYANI,BEED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BEED, BEED

We note that this appeal was filed with a delay of 275 days. The assessee filed notarized affidavit dated 01-03-2023 explaining the reasons for the said delay. On perusal of the same and hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that the assessee made out a sufficient cause which really prevented the assessee to file the present appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 275 days is condoned.

At the outset, we note that the Pr. CIT invoked jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and held the assessment order dated 26-12-2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We note that the Pr. CIT issued notice dated 28-02-2020 asking for explanation/submission of the assessee why the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act should not be invoked. On an examination of para 3.1 of the impugned order, we note that there was no response by the assessee. The Pr. CIT conducted the proceedings ex-parte of the assessee and held that the AO has failed to examine the issues relating to cash deposits, sundry debtors and sundry creditors and quashed the order of AO with a direction to examine afresh, frame assessment after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. AR requested one more opportunity to the assessee and submitted that the assessee is ready to comply with the notices issued by the Pr. CIT. The ld. DR did not report any objection to the said submissions. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of Pr. CIT for its fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.