HAFIZULLAH FARUKH CHAUDHARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(1)(2), MUMBAI

As the assessee has raised similar grounds in both the appeals, the grounds raised in the appeal for the assessment year 2020-21, are reproduced as follows for ready reference: - “1. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law, contrary to facts on record, passed without proper appreciation of evidence and statutory provisions, and is liable to be quashed. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer ("AO") by dismissing appellant's appeal only on the rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal and not discussing anything on the merits of the case. 3. Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the following additions made by the AO on the merits: Sr. No. Particulars Addition Amt 1. Alleged cash payment of Rs. 51,49,600/- 51,49,600 treating as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (The Act) 2. Investment made in immovable property 99,00,000 amounting to Rs. 99,00,000/- treating as alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the of the Act. 3. Alleged expenditure made on payment of stamp 4,95,000 duty amounting to Rs. 4,95,000/- (5% of Rs. 99,00,000/-) and registration charges of Rs. 30,000/- treating as alleged unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present appeals, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A), vide impugned orders, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay.

During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) invited our attention to the affidavit of the assessee, forming part of the appeal set and submitted that the assessee was not well versed with the income tax laws and procedural compliances, and therefore, was totally

From the perusal of the impugned orders, we find that the learned CIT(A) rejected the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay and held that the explanation offered by the assessee is vague and lacks due diligence in pursuing the remedy.

Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the learned CIT(A) and explain the reason for not filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, we restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after reconsideration of the assessee’s request for condonation of delay. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to submit all the details/documents/affidavit in respect of its

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/05/2026