STANDARD AUTOSPARES PRIVTAE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal is adjudicated on the basis of material available on record and in the absence of the assessee.

It is observed that the appeal was filed delayed by 322 days. Before us, an application for condonation of delay was filed wherein, it is stated that that assessee had not received any communication either by SMS or email or by post in respect of the disposal of the appeal by ld. CIT(A). The appellant came to know about the above order when notice was received by post for the recovery of outstanding demand. When the assessee logged into the income tax portal to check the status of appeal pending proceeding before CIT(A), NFAC, the order dismissing the appeal of the assessee was found. Due to this reason, the appeal was filed delayed before the Ld. CIT(A) by 322 days. It is thus submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor willful and occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and the assessee has bonafide reason thus, it is requested to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.

In view of the above facts, we find that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 322 days as the notices for hearing were never reached to the assessee. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapses on the part of the litigant concerned however, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against it. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give

Heard the contention of ld. Sr.DR as none appeared on behalf of the assessee and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is observed that before both the lower authorities, assessee has failed to make full compliance and complete details were not filed. The addition was made on account of investment in acquisition of immovable property for which the source was not explained. Thus, in absence of any explanation, the AO has made the addition of the amount of Rs. 3,45,26,700/- on which TCS u/s. 194IA and the same was treated as unexplained investment within the meaning of Section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act188/-. As no submission was filed, therefore the ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the finding of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside both the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the file of the AO with the directions to pass the order denovo afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to appear before the AO and file all the necessary details to explain the source of the acquisition of immovable property acquired during

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09.07.2026.