JUZER,RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WD, JHALAWAR

The learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the nominal delay of 20 days as explained in application submitted for condonation of delay and adjudicated the grounds on merits of the case.

In the notice u/s 250 dated 25/07/2025 fixing the date of hearing on 11/08/2025 assessee was called upon to make submission on grounds of appeal. Nominal delay of 20 days in filing of appeal as per application for condonation of delay was not questioned. Appeal ought not to have been dismissed by not condoning the delay.

The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the application for condonation submitted 'Online" on 15/02/2025 and has incorrectly noted facts in appellate order to compute delay of 62 days and observing the same to be inordinate delay as against delay of only 20 days.

Order passed by CIT(A) is without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and is in violation of principles of natural justice and is required to be set aside.

The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal summarily without considering the merits of grounds on the basis of evidence on record and submission uploaded on 11/08/2025.

The notice issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law thus consequent assessment framed thereupon is liable to be cancelled.

The notice issued u/s 148A(b) of I.T. Act 1961 granting time less than 7 days is not in accordance with law and consequent proceedings initiated to issue notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 are bad in law and unsustainable.

Notice u/s 148 of I.T. act 1961 is issued by Income Tax Officer, Ward Jahlawar being Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by Faceless Assessment Centre is bad in law in terms of judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. reported at 162 taxmann.com 225(Bom).

The addition made by A.O. at Rs.8.00 lacs u/s 69A of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law.

The addition made by A.O. at Rs.8.00 lacs u/s 69A of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.

The learned A.O. erred in holding that assessee has given sum of Rs.8.00 lacs source of which remain unexplained at the hands of assessee in order to make addition at Rs.8.00 lacs and thus addition made is unjustified and unsustainable.

he learned A.O. ought to have held that there is no money which remains unexplained to be brought to tax u/s 69A of I.T. Act 1961 at Rs.8.00 lacs.

The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.

Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”

Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : Assessment in this case was framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) at the total income of Rs. 8,00,000/- by making addition u/s 69A of the Act. On the ground that the assessee has received back an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- in cash in violation of the provisions contained in the Income Tax Act. The assessee has failed to join the assessment proceedings before the AO. 3. The assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing the appeal who has dismissed the same in limine by not condoning the delay of 62 days.

Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard Ld. ARs for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 6. Bare perusal of para 3(2) of the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) it has come on record, the assessee categorically pleaded that the assessment order passed against him was handed over to Sunil R. Assudani working in the office of counsel of assessee M/s Dewani Brothers. C.A. Sunil R Assudani was busy in regular appeal filing and Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 for which last date was 31.01.2025, and due to oversight failed to file the appeal of the assessee. 7. We are of the considered view that reason for condonation of delay put forth by the assessee is “sufficient cause” because negligence or oversight on the part of the counsel whose name has been duly recorded by the assessee in the application for condonation of delay should not be allowed to jeopardise legal rights of the assessee. So asessee’s case having meager addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- might be the last preference of the tax prectioner. Moreover due to mistake or negligence of tax prectioner, as the case may be, assessee cannot be made to suffer, who has a right to be heard. So in these