BAJARANGLAL BHURARAM PAREEK,BHAYANDER, THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 24(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow ["learned CIT(A)"], under section

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Briefly stated, the assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. The assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2017. The Assessing Officer recorded that, despite opportunities, the requisite details were not furnished. He, therefore, completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. Income of Rs.1,97,024 as per Form No.16 was taken into account and additions of Rs.10,00,000, in respect of an immovable-property transaction, and Rs.1,00,000, in respect of cash deposited in a bank account, were made. The total income was assessed at Rs.12,97,020.

The assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 26.05.2019. There was a delay of 484 days. The learned CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation offered for the delay and declined to condone it. The appeal was consequently treated as inadmissible. The learned CIT(A) also made observations on the merits and rejected the grounds. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessment itself was completed ex parte. Referring to the affidavit filed by the assessee, he submitted that during the relevant period the assessee had shifted his residence, left his earlier employment and, after an intervening period, obtained re-employment. Notices and the assessment order were stated to have been sent to an address with which the assessee was no longer regularly connected. It was 3

Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below. She submitted that opportunities had been granted during the assessment as well as the first appellate proceedings and that the assessee ought to have acted with due diligence. She, however, left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The appeal before the learned CIT(A) was delayed by 484 days. The assessee has placed an affidavit explaining the circumstances in which the delay occurred, namely shifting of residence, cessation of the earlier employment and subsequent re- employment. These circumstances have to be considered in the background that the assessment was completed ex parte and that the controversy involves substantive additions arising from a transaction in immovable property and cash deposits. The explanation, read as a whole, does not indicate that the assessee derived any advantage by filing the appeal belatedly or that the delay was deliberate.

The expression "sufficient cause" must receive a pragmatic construction so that a litigant is not denied adjudication on merits merely because of a procedural lapse, provided the explanation is bona fide and no gross negligence or mala fides are shown. The Hon'ble

We further notice that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte and the primary evidence concerning the sale of the residential property, purchase of another residential property and the source of cash deposits has not been examined by him. Though the learned CIT(A) declined to admit the appeal on limitation, he also entered into the merits without admitting the additional evidence. In these circumstances, and in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order as well as the assessment order and restore the entire matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to raise all legal and factual contentions and to furnish the relevant evidence. The Assessing Officer shall consider the same on its own merits and pass a speaking order, uninfluenced by any observation made in the impugned order or in this order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

The assessee is directed to cooperate in the fresh proceedings, furnish the requisite details promptly and not seek adjournment without reasonable cause. The Assessing Officer shall ensure service of notices at the latest address and electronic address furnished by the assessee.

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