RAHUL RAMAKANT ANVIKAR,NEW PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

At the outset, none appeared on 15-04-2026. However, paper book was filed and copies of affidavits were on record. 15-04-2026 was 8th hearing. On earlier occasions also either no one appeared or adjournment was sought. In these facts, we heard the Ld.DR and studied the records.

In this case, Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 2923 days. Assessee had made an elaborate submission before the Ld.CIT(A) explaining the delay. But, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

Before us, assessee filed an affidavit. Assessee submitted that initially assessee was residing in Jalna. However, in 2012, assessee shifted to Panel, Maharashtra. Assessee submitted in the affidavit that no order u/s. 144 of the Act was served on the assessee. Assessee got to know about the assessment order only when his bank account was attached. Then, assessee approached the AO and obtained the copy of assessment order and immediately filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, it has been mentioned in the affidavit that assessee obtained copy of the assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act. Assessee received copy of the assessment order on 13-09-2019.

Assessee further mentioned in the affidavit that assessee had taken inspection of assessment records along with his tax practitioners and noted that in the records of the AO, there was no evidence of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dt. 20-08-2010. Similarly, there was no evidence of any other notice, except the attachment notice. Assessee’s tax practitioner, Guru Deep Singh Bagaa also filed an affidavit confirming the fact of inspection of assessment record wherein they have not found any notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act or any other notice. Both these affidavits have duly been notarized.

We have read the assessment order. In the first paragraph of the assessment order it is mentioned that the assessee filed return of income for AY. 2009-10 on 29-09-2009. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. It is further mentioned in the assessment order that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, 20-08-2010 was issued and sent by RPAD, but, it was returned un-served. It is further mentioned in the assessment order that Income Tax Inspector was deputed to serve the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act which is served by affixure on 30-09-2010. It is specifically mentioned in the assessment order that there was no compliance and AO computed assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act.

In these facts and circumstances, when we have read the assessment order along with the affidavit of the assessee, we are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal before the

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