DHANAJI ANANDA MAGAR,SANGLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay of 48 days in filing of the appeal and thereby confirming the order of the Assessing Officer determining the assessed income at Rs.1,86,99,985/- as against the returned income of Rs.7,00,530/-.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. As per information received, in this case Lonawala Rural Police Station intercepted cash of Rs.4.00 crores in the vehicle bearing no.KA-53-MD-8505 on 28.03.2022. The said cash was in possession of Shri Mahesh Nanaso Mane and Shri Smabhaji Ghatge. From further inquiries it was revealed that the cash belongs to Shri. Dhanaji Ananda Magar i.e. the assessee who is the Prop. of Shree Datta Bullion and Jewellers, Sangli. The assessee in his statement also stated that the said cash belonged to his business Shree Datta Bullion and Jewellers and recorded in books of accounts. Thereafter, warrant of authorization u/s 132A of the Act was issued by the Department and the said cash was seized by the Lonawala Rural Police on 04.04.2022. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire were also issued. Due to non-response from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 30.12.2022 determining the total income of Rs.1,86,99,985/- as against the returned income of Rs.7,00,530/- by making the following additions : i) Unexplained unsecured loan u/s 68 Rs.1,62,36,915/- ii) Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs. 12,19,640/- iii) Non-genuine claim of expenses Rs.5,900/- iv) Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs.91,392/- v) Unexplained credits in bank account u/s 69A Rs.5,37,000/-

Since the assessee filed appeal with a delay of 48 days, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay on the ground that the assessee has not explained any sufficient cause as per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the condonation application filed before the Ld. CIT(A) drew the attention of the Bench to the same and submitted that due to the illness of the Chartered Accountant, who was looking after the tax matters, the appeal could not be filed in time. Relying on various decisions he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the rival contentions made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 48 days before the Ld. CIT(A). At the same time he has also filed an affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the reasons for such delay according to which due to illness of the Chartered Accountant looking after the tax matters he was unable to attend to his professional duties. Since the assessee entirely depended on his guidance for compliance with assessment related matters, the delay occurred inadvertently. However, we find the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the contents

We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

We find recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: "14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation."

In the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submissions, if any, on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld.

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