MOHAMMED JAVID HIRAJI RAJ SHAIKH,KALYAN vs. ITO, KALYAN

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The Registry pointed out that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 354 days. The Ld. AR filed a petition seeking condonation of the delay, supported by an affidavit duly sworn on 04.08.2026 by the assessee, explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR did not raise any serious objection to the prayer for condonation of delay. Having considered the submissions of both sides and the reasons stated in the affidavit, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 354 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return in compliance of notice u/s 148 of the Act by declaring total income Rs. 12,04,400/-. The assessee’s case was reopened as per the information from portal RMS the assessee has deposited cash in bank account. The reassessment was framed with the additions u/.s 40A(3) r.w.Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 amount to Rs. 37,13,278/- and undisclosed income amount to Rs. 9,81,936/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) had granted sufficient opportunities for the hearing in different dates. But the assessee had failed to comply the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Considering this, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merit of the case. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us.

The Ld. AR argued and contended that the assessee is doing business of livestock and running a shop at ‘Ullashnagar’. The assessee was decided to settle out of India and accordingly shifted to Dubai on 06/09/2024, the copy of the passport & visa are enclosed herewith the submission. During the appellate

The Ld. DR argued and contended that, although the Ld. CIT(A) had granted sufficient opportunities of being heard, the assessee failed to comply with the same. The assessee was unable to provide any reasonable justification for its non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, he relied upon and supported the orders of the revenue authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was disposed of ex parte. The assessee has failed to comply the notices due to his stay outside India & the merit of the case was remained unexplained before the appellate authority. Consequently, the assessee was deprived of a proper and effective opportunity to participate in the appellate proceeding. The principles of natural justice warrant that a litigant should not be denied adjudication on merits when reasonable cause is demonstrated. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits by passing a speaking order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings, and the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issues in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4880/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.