ABDUL SATTAR A KHADAKE,VIJAYAPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, BIJAPUR, KAR-W-(521)(92), VIJAYAPUR

The present appeal is delayed by 7 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay, duly supported by an affidavit sworn by the assessee. Considering the submission, we are of the view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the present appeal.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee acquired actual knowledge of the assessment order only upon receipt of Show Causes Notices issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271F and that the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide and reasonable cause. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds on merits, thereby denying the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice. 4. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment itself was completed ex parte under section 144 read with section 147 without participation of the assessee, and therefore the appellate authority ought to have adopted a liberal approach to enable adjudication on merits. 5. That the dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds has resulted in grave prejudice to the assessee and has caused substantial injustice, as the additions have remained unexamined on merits, hence the other needs to be set aside. 6. That the impugned order passed under section 250 is arbitrary, contrary to settled principles governing condonation of delay, and liable to be set aside. Hence, the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on the basis that the assessee had deposited cash in his savings bank accounts maintained with Syndicate Bank, and the assessee did not file his original return of income. During the reassessment proceedings, several opportunities were granted to the assessee to present its case and to provide explanations and evidence in support of its claim. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices. After considering the information received from the Syndicate Bank in response to notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act, it was observed that out of the total credit of Rs. 1,63,95,853, there was a cash deposit of Rs. 1,63,85,500. It was further observed that the assessee was depositing that cash in his bank account through various branches of the Canara Bank, and immediately, the deposited amount was withdrawn in cash through ATM or a withdrawal slip. Since the purpose of depositing the cash in the bank account remained unexplained and the source of the cash deposit was also not explained, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 09/03/2024 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act made an addition of Rs. 1,63,85,500 under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee.

The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as the same was delayed by 138 days. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) reiterating the submissions made before the learned CIT(A) for seeking condonation of delay, submitted that all the notices issued during the reassessment proceedings were sent to the email address of the consultant, which was updated in the database of the Income Tax Department while applying for PAN of the assessee. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that due to the aforesaid circumstances, the assessee was totally unaware of the issuance of notices and only after the receipt of the penalty notice, the assessee became aware of the additions made by the AO. Accordingly, the assessee immediately thereafter filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A).

Having considered the submissions and perused the materials available on record, we deem it appropriate to grant another opportunity to the assessee to file all the details in support of its claim for necessary verification. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to appear before the AO within 30 days of receipt of this order and file all the details in support of the case. Thus, the assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the assessment proceedings and furnish any other information/documents as may be sought by the AO for complete adjudication of the issue involved. With the above directions, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd June, 2026