MR. SANDEEP SINGH NEGI,KOTDWARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

Having considered the explanation furnished by the assessee and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 197 days in filing the present appeals (ITA Nos. 204, 205 & 206/DDN/2026) is condoned in the larger interest of justice and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.

The grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A), by way of the impugned ex-parte orders, confirmed the addition of Rs.45,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment, along with a further addition of Rs.31,002 on account of notional interest on advances. The ld. CIT(A) also refused to condone the delay of 6 days in filing the appeals and accordingly dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation as well as on merits.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR and examined the record. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay of 6 days in filing the appeals. it is submitted that the submissions made regarding condonation of delay has not been considered in a holistic manner by the ld. CIT(A) who has taken a harsh view and because of the hyper technical approach adopted by the ld. CIT(A), the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is therefore prayed that the delay of 6 days before the ld. CIT(A) be condoned, the impugned ex-parte order be set aside and the matters be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after affording an effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The ld. DR on the other hand while relying upon the orders of the ld. lower authorities would submit that the assessee has deliberately suffered the impugned ex-parte order and the ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and the explanation given by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay, we are inclined to accept the contentions of the ld. AR made on behalf of the assessee and are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has adopted a hyper

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the delay of 6 days in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. Consequently, the impugned ex-parte orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) are set aside. The matters are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de-novo in accordance with law after affording an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) within the period of 60 days of this order.

Since, the factual matrix and the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is identical and similar in this appeal vis-à-vis ITA No. 206/DDN/2026, hence, the findings of the Tribunal in ITA No. 206/DDN/2026 shall apply mutatis mutandis in ITA Nos. 204 & 205/DDN/2026 for A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 also.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 204, 205 & 206/DDN/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 30/07/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR