ABUL HASAN JUNAID,SENDHWA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, SENDHWA

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 14.10.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 19.12.2022 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2021-22, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal on account of delay and not considering the application for condonation of delay. 2. There was a reasonable cause in the delay in filing the appeal which was proved by filing the affidavit. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. 3. The addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 32,40,000/- u/s 69 being deposits in the bank is bad in law. The source of the deposit was proved and as such the addition made may please be deleted. 4. The assessee craves to amend, alter or delete any of the ground of appeal.” 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the

assessee-individual filed his return of AY 2021-22 declaring a total income

of Rs. 4,36,480/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment

and the Ld. AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) which were partly complied

by assessee. Finally, the Ld. AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) after

making a total addition of Rs. 32,40,000/- on account of unexplained

deposits in bank a/c. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal

but the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal as time-barred without

condoning delay. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal

before us.

days in filing first-appeal to CIT(A) but the assessee filed a cogent

submission to Ld. CIT(A) explaining the reason of delay; the assessee’s

submission is re-produced in Para 5.1 of impugned order passed by Ld.

CIT(A). Ld. AR invited our attention to the submission made by assessee to

Ld. CIT(A) according to which there was a mis-handling of case by assessee’s representative. Ld. AR also drew us to an affidavit of assessee’s

representative, filed at Page 41 of Paper-Book, wherein the representative

has admitted fault on his part. Thus, Ld. AR submitted that the delay was

not attributable to assessee. He further submitted that there was no

lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in

making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because

of delay. He submitted that there is “sufficient cause” for delay and hence

the delay should have been condoned by CIT(A). Ld. AR requested the bench

to take a judicious view and condone the delay occurred in filing first appeal.

Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising

any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee

and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is

found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing first appeal to CIT(A). It

is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land

Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387

that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed

to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting

a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case and

the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and

condone the delay occurred in filing first appeal.

from his mother “Smt. Akhtar Begum” in cash and deposited in his bank

a/c. He submitted that the mother of assessee received moneys from sale of property for making gifts to assessee. The evidences of sale of property by

mother, mother’s bank statement and gift-deeds, etc., which are necessary

evidences to explain the sources of deposits in assessee’s bank a/c, are filed

in Paper-Book. Accordingly, Ld. AR prayed to remand this case to the file of

Ld. AO for adjudication afresh after examining assessee’s evidences. Ld. DR

for revenue agrees with the submissions and prayers made by Ld. AR and

leaves the entire matter for the wisdom of bench without raising any

objection. However, he makes a request to direct the assessee to represent

his case before Ld. AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

Considering these submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of

natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused

to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of Ld. AO, we remand

this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and

responsibility of assessee. The Ld. AO shall give necessary opportunity of

hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his

earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure

participation in the hearings as may be fixed by Ld. AO and do not seek

unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld. AO shall be at liberty to

pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced in open court on 24/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indore

िदनांक/Dated : 24/04/2026

Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 5 of 5