SUNIL BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed by ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B. The order so sustained is bad in law and bad on facts and is contrary to the principles of natural justice.

The ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining an addition of Rs 37,65,500/- for alleged unexplained deposit in bank account w/s 69. The addition so sustained is bad in law and bad on facts.

The ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C which is bad in law and bad on facts. 3. At the outset, it was noticed that the instant appeal is delayed by over four months.In this regard, an application alongwith an affidavit of the assessee requesting for condonation has been submitted online stating that the appellate order came to his notice only on 07.08.2025. There were two appeals pending before CIT(A) for same AY 2012-13. The hearing notice for the appeal for AY 2012-13 fixed for 11.08.2025 was received by him and while filing the response to the same, it came to the notice that one of the appeals for the said year had already been decided vide order dated 21.01.2025, in which his appeal had been dismissed. Since the assessee came to know about the order being passed only on 07.08.2025, it is requested that the appeal submitted may kindly be treated as filed in due time. However, if it is considered as delayed from the date of order, he prayed for condonation of such delay which had occurred on account of genuine and bonafide reasons.

On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing of the present appeal was not intentional but due to certain misunderstanding and miscommunication and appears to be a case of bonafide mistake. Rejection of the request for condonation may cause genuine hardship to the assessee. In this connection, reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon’ble Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) that “ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late……..Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated….Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period…. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.”Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return declaring total income of Rs.48,49,150/-.Further, order u/s 144 of the Act was passed assessing total income of Rs.1,30,56,920/-.Later,based on the information received from the Investigation wing of the Department, Mumbai regarding certain suspicious financial transactions recorded in the bank account of the assessee, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued for reopening of the assessment.During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee failed to explain the cash deposit of Rs.37,65,000/-resulting in ex-parte assessment and consequent addition of the above sum as Unexplained money.In the subsequent appellate proceedings,as observed by the ld.CIT(A) despite notices sent to the assessee on registered email ID which were duly delivered, there was no compliance. The ld.CIT(A) concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.Since he failed to explain and support of the grounds of appeal before him,the addition made was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. 6. When the case was called up for hearing before us, it remained unattended. The ld.DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We find that the appellate order has also been passed in ex- parte manner on account of non-compliance by the assessee and none of P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2012-13 Sunil Bohra, Mumbai the issues raised in the grounds of appeal involved have been adjudicated. Consequently, the ld.CIT(A) could not evaluate the points of consideration so as to give his own decision on objective analysis of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Considering the entirety of the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of principles of natural justice and fair play, we consider it appropriate to send the entire matter back to the file of the AO in the light of above discussion, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to advance his arguments and submissions before him so as to provide details in connection with the merits of the case. Accordingly, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the appellate order/Assessment order and restore the entire matter back to the ld.AO for passing the assessment order de novo after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee who is also directed to attend the assessment proceedings before the AO without fail and cooperate with him in furnishing relevant details etc. as sought by him. 8.1 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute,

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/10/2025. [Justice (Retd. ) C V BHADANG] [PRABHASH SHANKAR] PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER