Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh
Revenue by: Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri S. N. Divetia, A.R. Date of hearing : 05-03-2020 Date of pronouncement : 06-03-2020 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is filed against the decision of ld. CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad refusing to condone the delay of five days and upholding additions of Rs. 20,30,755/- made by the assessing officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act.
Page No 2 Smt. Rajeshree Sanjay Shah vs. ITO
During the course of appellate proceedings before us, no-one has attended from the side of the assessee. We have heard ld. departmental representative and perused the material on record.
The fact in brief is that assessee has filed return of income on 30th Nov, 2015 declaring total income at Rs. 2,21,675/-. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) of the act was issued on 28th July, 2016. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the act was passed on 29th December, 2016 and total income was assessed at Rs. 22,52,930/- after making addition on account of unexplained deposit made in the saving bank account and unexplained unsecured loan obtained during the year under consideration by the assessee.
Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that condonation of five days delay in filing appeal is rejected.
We have heard ld. departmental representative and perused the material on record. It is noticed that ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal of the asssssee on merit as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. It is noticed that there was only short delay of five days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has given plausible explanation that assessee was out of the station and had returned in the second week of January, 2017 which resulted in delay in filing the appeal by five days. The assessee has also explained that being illiterate she was wholly dependent upon his husband for tax and other matters and because his husband was out Page No 3 Smt. Rajeshree Sanjay Shah vs. ITO of the station in connection his business which resulted in short delay by five days for filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Considering the totality of the facts of the present case, we consider that ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay of five days in filing the appeal. Therefore, we set aside and restore this issue in appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh on merit after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.