SUJAL VIJAYBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(4), AHMEDABAD

(Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R : Revenue by Shri N.K. Goyal, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 23/01/2020 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 30/01/2020 आदेश/O R D E R PER Ms MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The instant appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 26.02.2014 passed by the ITO, Ward-10(4) , Ahmedabad under section 143 (3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for the Assessment Year 2011- 2012.

2 total income of Rs.1,59,980/-. The said assessment was finalized by the Ld.Assessing Officer by making addition to the tune of Rs.36,06,614/- u/s.68 of the Act on account of the credit entries of that amount in his account by way of transfer and addition of Rs.1,09,676/- u/s.69C of the Act on account of “un explained expenditure”. The said amount was paid by the assessee to Emirates Airways. During the course of assessment proceeding wife of the assessee filed written reply dated 26/02/2016. However, the said explanation rendered by the assessee’s wife in respect to the issues were not supported by the cogent evidences and thus was not allowed. The appeal preferred by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority was also suffered from limitation by 25 days along with the application for the condonation of delay with necessary evidences as well as paper book containing additional evidences. The plea of the assessee is this that he was undergoing imprisonment as under trail long under NSPS Act from long December 2012 and the bail application made from time to time got rejected by the Court including the Apex Court for released on pay roll. Furthermore, the appellant, during the period from March 2016 to May 2018 was under detention and in such circumstances the assessee’s wife remained only person to look after the affairs having mental agony and worry on account of detention of the appellant was not been able to produce the relevant documents before the authorities below neither could take step in due time to file the appeal before the ''Ld.CIT (A)''. However, such plea of the assessee was rejected by the ''Ld.CIT (A)''. Hence the instant appeal before us. It is relevant to mention that there is 719 days delay in preferring the instant appeal before us by the appellant. A application for condonation of delay with an affidavit has been filed by the appellant.

Heard the parties, perused the relevant materials available on record. It appears that the appellant has filed affidavit narrating entire facts of the 3 detention causing irreparable loss and injury and the cause for not been able to represent his case before the authorities below. We have thoroughly considered the same and found justiciable to condone the delay to prefer the appeal before the ''Ld.CIT (A)''.

Order pronounced in the Court on 30/01/2020 at Ahmedabad.