NARSINGH RAJARAM GAUTAM,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(1), PUNE

When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous date of hearing fixed on 20.04.2026 there was no representation from the side of assessee. We therefore proceed to adjudicate these appeals with the help of ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua assessee.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the records placed before us. We note that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of retail sale of non- specialised stores in the name and style A.M. Enterprises. We have gone through the assessment orders as well as the First Appellate Authorities. In the instant case of assessee, based on the information received from the Dy. Director of Income Tax (Investigation Unit-2(1), Pune, a search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Shri Mohammad Nayeem Choudhary and its related entities during the course of which it came to know that assessee has made payment to Shri Abdul Hameed Choudhary, Prop. of East India Company for purchase of property at Chakan, Pune, ld. Assessing Officer formed belief that income escaped assessment to tax and issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has entered into agreement for purchase of immovable property located at Chakan from Shri Abdul Hameed Choudhary and various incriminating documents found and seized, cash payment, details of payments made through cheques, excel data etc. Statutory notices u/s.1421(1) and show cause notices were issued to which there was no compliance from the side of assessee for the three assessment years under appeal and ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessments making various additions for the assessment years under appeal.

It is seen that assessee has furnished the explanation before ld.CIT(A) for delay stating that assessee is suffering from sciatica pain and duly enclosed MRI report and the prescription given by Dr. Sachin M. Kamble, Orthocare Clinic. On perusal, it prima-facie suggest that the assessee is actually suffering from sciatica pain and the delay is approximately 5 months. Considering it to be a ‘reasonable cause’ and adopting justice oriented approach and the Income Tax Act being welfare legislation law, ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay.

On examination of the reasons for condonation of delay as well as the explanation tendered by the assessee in support thereof and upon a comprehensive appraisal of the facts, we find that the delay cannot be attributed either to deliberate inaction or to any lack of bonafides on the part of the assessee. The circumstances explained demonstrate that the default occurred due to reasons beyond the assessee's control and not on account of any negligence, or want of diligence. In our considered view, assessee has satisfactorily established the existence of "sufficient cause" for the delay in preferring the appeals before the first appellate authority. We therefore condone the delay before ld.CIT(A). Since ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeals on merits, we in the interest of justice remit back the issues raised in the instant appeals to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld. CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned orders are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,