MADHURI KUMARI,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 1(1), MUZZAFARPUR

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2022-23 declaring total income of Rs.9,86,510/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the case was selected for verification of the issue relating to cash deposit in bank account, source of investment

I.T.A. No.75/Pat/2026 Madhuri Kumari; AY: 2022-23 in the immovable property, treatment of receipts from sale of property, claim of deduction under chapter VIA of the Act. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee calling for details. However, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee failed to satisfactorily explain. Accordingly, source of investment of Rs.60,67,000/- in property, source of cash deposit of Rs.68,95,000/- and claim of deduction under chapter VIA amounting to Rs.1,90,000/- added to the income of the assessee and the assessing officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, determining the total income of assessee at Rs.1,41,38,500/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, there was a delay of 29 days in filing the appeal, as the Ld. CIT(A) instead of examining the merit of the case, dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground of delay without adjudicating substantive issues involved. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. During the proceedings before this Tribunal, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was marginal and ought to have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the issue of delay without examining the merit of the case which is bad in law. He, therefore, prayed that since assessee was prevented by the reasonable cause and should be granted an opportunity to substantiate its claim. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the decision of the authorities below and stated that as the assessee has failed to comply with procedural requirement and did not provide adequate explanation, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

I.T.A. No.75/Pat/2026 Madhuri Kumari; AY: 2022-23 6. We, after hearing the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, it is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground of delay of 29 days without adjudicating the issues on merit. It is well-settled that liberal approach should be adopted while considering the condonation of delay particularly when delay is not inordinate, as assessee demonstrate reasonable cause for such delay, however dismissal of appeal without adjudicating the merit of the case. In the present case of the assessee, the delay of 29 days is not substantial and the issues involve in the appeals relating to unexplained investment cash deposit and deduction require so far examination. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and furnish necessary details without seeking unnecessary adjournment. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 24th April, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 24.04.2026. DP, PS

I.T.A. No.75/Pat/2026 Madhuri Kumari; AY: 2022-23 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches