VIKAS GAJRE,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD -7(1), HYDERBAD

Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out sale of immovable property for a consideration of Rs.32,75,000/-, but had not filed his return of income for the said year, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 28/03/2024 was issued to the assessee.

Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 16/12/20224 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.64,11,672/- after making two additions, viz., (i) addition of short term capital gains (STCG) on sale of property: Rs.31,25,000/-; and (ii) addition of unexplained credits in bank account under section 69A of the Act: Rs.32,86,672/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee despite having been afforded three opportunities vide notices, dated 27/06/2025, 18/07/2025 and 27/07/2025 for participating in the proceedings before the CIT(A), failed to respond to the same, the CIT(A) proceeded with on the presumption that the assessee/appellant had no further cogent reasoning or/and evidence to substantiate the grounds taken in the impugned appeal before him. Accordingly, the CIT(A) after considering of the observations of the AO and finding no infirmity in the same, upheld the same and dismissed the appeal.

The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us.

We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record.

Shri S K Gupta, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that the present appeal involves a delay of 74 days. Elaborating on the reason leading to the delay, the Ld. AR submitted that the same had crept in because at the relevant point of time all the tax compliances in the case of the assessee were being looked after by a small time tax practitioner who used the assessee’s ITBA portal to respond to the notices etc. The Ld. AR submitted that though the CIT(A) vide his order, dated 29/08/2025 had dismissed the assessee’s appeal, but the tax practitioner had not brought the said fact to his notice within the stipulated time period. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that it was only when the assessee had enquired about the fate of his appeal that he was informed about the dismissal of the same, which by the time involved a delay of 74 days. The Ld. AR submitted that as the delay of 74 days in filing of the present appeal had occasioned not for any lackadaisical approach of the assessee, the same in all fairness and in the interest of justice be condoned. The Ld. AR to buttress his aforesaid factual contention had taken us through the assessee’s affidavit, dated 09/04/2026, wherein the aforesaid facts were deposed by him.

Per contra, Shri K Prasad, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”) objected to the seeking of condonation of delay by the assessee.

We have given thoughtful consideration and are of the view that as deposed by the assessee in his affidavit, dated 09/04/2026, the delay in filing of the present appeal before us had occasioned for bona fide reasons and not on account of any lackadaisical approach of the assessee, but for the failure on the part of the his tax practitioner to scrupulously follow up the appeal and intimate the assessee about the same.

We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are of the view that the delay in filing of the present appeal merits to be condoned.

Coming to the facts of the case, we find that as the assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), the latter had on the said count itself upheld the view taken by the AO and dismissed the appeal. Although, the CIT(A) in his order referred to the facts involved in the appeal, as well as observed that the assessee had failed to lead any evidence/material which would point out any perversity in the view taken by the AO, but find that he had not addressed the specific grounds of appeal based on which the impugned order of assessment was assailed before him. We say so, for the reason that as per the ground of appeal no.5, the assessee had specifically assailed the validity of the assessment on the ground that the subject proceedings were not initiated in faceless manner as required in the Faceless Assessment Scheme notified by the CBDT. Apart from that, the specific grounds based on which the impugned addition made by the AO were assailed by the assessee had also in substance remained unaddressed.

We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations deem it apposite to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide the appeal. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.