PAVWAN DROLIAA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-24(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notices. However, on perusal of the grounds of appeal, we find that these appeals can be adjudicated upon on the basis of the material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR. We, therefore, proceed to adjudicate upon the captioned appeals.

The assessee, in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 45 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer by treating the unsecured loans claimed by the assessee as unexplained cash credits. The assessee is also aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not reflecting the speculation loss with the speculation income. The assessee has also raised a ground challenging the computation of the assessed income.

The assessee vide ground Nos. 1 and 2, inter alia, has contend that the Ld. CIT(A) did not provide proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present his case. It is further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) declined the request of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

It has been pleaded that the assessee has a prima facie case on merits and that the assessee may be permitted to furnish the requisite documents and details and be afforded a proper and effective opportunity of hearing.

Considering the above submissions and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the assessee deserves an opportunity to properly present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide a proper and adequate

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

On perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, it is revealed that the assessee has contended that he was not provided a proper and effective opportunity by the ld. CIT(A) to present his case. It is further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal before him.

We note that the assessee had pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that ihe was not conversant with the complex online income-tax procedures relating to filing of appeals, etc. It was submitted that the assessee had filed the appeal in physical form before the Ld. CIT(A) and was not aware of the CBDT Circular requiring mandatory filing of appeals electronically. It was, therefore, submitted that although the assessee had filed the appeal in physical form within the prescribed period of limitation, the delay occurred only on account of the subsequent requirement of filing the appeal electronically, owing to the aforesaid reasons.

Considering the above submissions and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits by way of a speaking and reasoned order.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.