NILUBEN KRISHNABHAI YADAV,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, VALSAD

There is a small delay of 12 days in filing present appeal if reckoned from date of impugned order. Having regard to the averments made by assessee/appellant in Para Nos. 4 to 11 of the application/affidavit filed for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there exists a “sufficient cause” for occurrence of delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387, wherein it has been held that the “technical considerations” should not prevail over the cause of “substantial justice”, we deem it fit to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken for hearing.

The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed her return of income of AY 2020-21 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,15,720/- u/s 139 which was assessed. Subsequently, on the

Ld. AR for assessee at first carried us to the Para 2 of order of first- appeal and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), while conducting first-appeal, granted only three hearings on 29.10.2025, 14.11.2025 and 28.11.2025 within a short span of time and the assessee filed adjournments applications as the assessee needed time for collection of details and documents for making preparation and representation. However, the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order on 02.12.2025 dismissing assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution and

Ld. AR next submitted that the assessment-order passed by AO is also ex-parte in which the major addition is of Rs. 66,60,000/- on account of unexplained investment in immovable property. However, the correct position is such that the assessee utilized home loan taken from ICICI Bank for making impugned investment. To substantiate this, the assessee has already collected supporting documents from ICICI Bank and the same are placed at Page 60 onwards in Paper-Book. Therefore, the investment made by assessee is from explained source. Hence, the assessee’s case requires a meritorious adjudication after due consideration of documents. Since the assessment- order is ex-parte and the documentary evidences filed by assessee in Paper- Book require a verification at the level of AO, the Ld. AR requested to remand this case to the file of Ld. AO. Ld. AR assured that the assessee shall definitely make a proper and effective representation before Ld. AO.

The Ld. DR for revenue, though not opposing the prayer of the assessee for restoration, submitted that the assessee had remained non-compliant during the assessment proceedings and also filed only adjournment applications during proceedings of first-appeal, which constrained the lower authorities to pass ex-parte orders. It was, therefore, submitted that while restoring the matter, a reasonable cost should be imposed and appropriate directions should also be issued to ensure strict compliance by assessee.

However, we find that the assessee has remained non-responsive before AO despite service of notices including one notice through speed post. Further, the assessee has also remained non-participative despite adjournments sought from Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in order to offset the revenue’s efforts in dealing assessee’s case afresh, we impose a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be paid by assessee to Income-tax Department through appropriate challan. The assessee shall submit a copy of duly paid challan to Ld. AO during the proceeding of fresh adjudication and shall not claim any credit or refund of such payment in any manner.

This Stay Application has been filed by assessee in the matter of above appeal, seeking grant of stay over the demand of Rs. 98,49,360/- originating from aforesaid assessment-order dated 20.02.2025 passed by Ld. AO. Since we have already restored the above appeal to the file of Ld. AO for a fresh assessment, the demand arising from impugned assessment-order becomes infructuous. Therefore, the Stay Application does not carry any merit and dismissed.

Resultantly, the ITA No. 368/SRT/2026 is allowed subject to payment of cost by assessee as mentioned therein and the Stay Application No. 11/SRT/2026 is dismissed.