SHAM AVINASH AKOLE,BHUSAWAL vs. ITO WARD 2(1) JALGAON, JALGAON

The sole grievance of the assessee is against the addition for unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.1,60,94,995/-.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Petrol and Diesel Pump. For the year under consideration, the assessee has not filed the return of income. Based on the information that assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his bank account and transacted in Equity shares but failed to file the income tax return for A.Y. 2016-17, case of the assessee reopened. Valid statutory notices issued and in the absence of any reply from the assessee ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment making addition of Rs.1,60,94,995/- u/s.69A of the Act and addition of Rs.1,37,955/-. Income assessed at Rs.1,62,32,950/-.We note that against the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with delay of 176 days and ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal

Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted notices issued by the authorities were sent on email id akole269@gmail.com which was not active and the registered email id is shamakole7@gmail.com. Further, the assessee is residing in Bhusawal and the notices were served on the address at Jalgaon. Due to reasons beyond control of the assessee there was non-compliance before ld.CIT(A) which resulted into dismissal of assessee. Therefore, the notices were neither properly served on his residential nor his email id and therefore requested for affording one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the cash deposited in the bank account and the Equity transactions made for the year under consideration.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We find that there was no appearance of assessee before both the lower authorities which resulted into confirmation of addition in the exparte orders passed by the Department. Further, we observe that ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the reasons for filing of appeal belatedly by 176 days and dismissed the appeal in limine. We further note that assessee has furnished explanation for delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) and the same has been extracted in para 5.2 of the impugned order. On perusing the reasons so furnished, we are satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional and therefore in light of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 176 days before ld.CIT(A) and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Since ld.CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits and considering the factual matrix and the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are of the view that assessee deserves one more opportunity to substantiate its grounds of appeal. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, we restore all the issues raised in this appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.