ANIL KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX AO NO. 92 RANGE CODE 107, JHUNJHUNU

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 1546/JPR/2025 Assessment year 2020-21

Anil Kumar Income Tax AO 1, Vpo-Jeeni, Jeeni B.O. No. 92, Range Vs Kajra, Jhunjhunu Code 107, PAN: CGTPK5549K Jhujhunu. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Varnit Jain, C.A. & Sh. Deepak Kaushik, C.A. Revenue Represented: Ms. Aarti Rawat, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 17-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 31-08-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Anil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 21.10.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua assessment year 2020-21 on the ground that:- “1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order ex-parte without providing a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant as the notices were sent to the old consultant’s email instead of the correct and updated email address provided in Form No. 35 and on the Income Tax portal (i.e. anil.bharia@gmail.com) . The assessee is engaged in the business of banking correspondence, and the income added by the Assessing Officer pertain to customer deposits that do not represent the assessee’s income. In

I.T.A No. 1546/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Anil Kumar

view of these facts and in the interest of natural justice condonation my kindly be granted and the appeal may be reconsidered by the CIT(A) to determine the assessee’s actual income based on the records submitted.” 2. At the very outset, it is brought to the notice of the Bench that this appeal is filled with delay of 17 days. Applicant by moving an application sought to condone the delay on the grounds inter-alia that appeal order dated 05.03.2025 was not served/received by the assessee in a hard copy, however it may have served in the Spam folder of his e-mail; that assessee has came to know about the appeal order when a penalty notice dated 12.06.2025 u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was issued for the same assessment year and consequently he has contacted his tax consultant. We are of the considered view that service through digital mode invariably not effected on the taxpayer, who are not tech savvy and we find it a “sufficient cause” to condone the delay of 17days in filing the present appeal., hence 17 days delay is condoned and appeal is being heard on merits. 3. Briefly stated, facts necessary for adjudication and consideration of the issues at hand are: Assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 3,54,17,883/- but has failed to explain its source by filing ITR for A.Y. 2020-21. The assessee has also failed to offer Commission receipt of Rs. 1,89,619/- for A.Y. 2020-21 to tax due to non-filing of ITR. Declining the contention raised by the assessee, the AO proceeded to make addition of Rs. 2,07,17,615/- being unexplained credit with P2P microfinance and allied services to be taxed u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has dismissed the same in limine on the ground of delay in filing the appeal by dismissing the application filed by the assessee for

I.T.A No. 1546/JPR/2025 Page No 3 Anil Kumar

condonation of delay. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard Ld. ARs for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 6. We have perused the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) before whom application for condonation of delay of 162 days in filing the appeal was moved in which he has not found “sufficient cause” to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Assessee filed application before Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay on the grounds inter alia that earlier assessee was represented by a consultant, who could not take appropriate action for lack of adequate professional qualification and experience; that thereafter assessee engaged D.Kaushik and company as he was new consultant and login of the income tax portal were also transferred to them; that while preparing and replying to the scrutiny proceedings for F.Y. 2023-24, newly appointed consultant came to know about the limitation for F.Y. 2019- 20 which remained unattended by the previous consultant; that thereafter immediately assessee initiated the process to file the present appeal. 7. In this case when the assessee could not file the appeal due to negligence or mistake, as the case may be, of his tax consultant and he came to know about the assessment order only when demand was raised and then he engaged new tax consultant namely D.Kaushik and Company, Chartered Accountant. In order to do substantial justice assessee cannot be made to suffer due to negligence and mistake on the part of his tax practitioner. In view of the matter, we find it a “sufficient cause” to condone the delay of 162 days in fling the

I.T.A No. 1546/JPR/2025 Page No 4 Anil Kumar

appeal and consequently impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is set aside to be remanded back for afresh decision on merits. 8. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes to be decided afresh on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Order pronounced in the open court on 31-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 31/08/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar