DERVAN DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANLI,KESHOD, JUNGADH vs. ITO WARD 1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (AOP) and had not filed its return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,25,62,600/- in its bank account during the relevant previous year. Accordingly, proceedings under section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were initiated. The assessee was afforded an opportunity of being heard under section 148A(b) of the Act. However, no response was filed. Consequently, an order under section 148A(d) was passed, followed by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under sections 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act, determining the total income at Rs. 1,26,41,000/- which included an addition of Rs.1,25,62,600/- under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal, however, was filed belatedly. According to the CIT(A), no application seeking condonation of delay had been filed. Accordingly, without adjudicating the issues on merits, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. 4. Still, aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that there was a delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended that the delay deserved to be condoned and the matter restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee has also filed an application before us seeking condonation of the delay of 104 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. We have considered the reasons stated in the condonation petition and are satisfied that there existed reasonable cause for the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. On the other hand the Ld. DR submitted that despite substantial cash deposits in the bank account, the assessee had failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, according to the Revenue, the authorities below were justified in passing the impugned orders. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We notice that both the orders of the authorities below have been passed ex parte due to the negligence on the part of the assessee. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the substantial tax effect involved, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee in the interest of substantial justice. 7. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate fully in the appellate proceedings and comply with all notices and directions issued by the CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open Court on 13/07/2026.