MURALI MANOHAR SINGH,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), PATNA

The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an Individual engaged in the business of petroleum and petrochemicals. The assessee had filed his return of income on 29.10.2017, declaring total income at ₹10,91,010/-. The case of the assessee was selected under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for the reasons that cash deposit during demonetization period SFT-014/FIU and income offered for taxation u/s 115BBE in Schedule SI of ITR. The ld. AO noted as per SFT- 14, ₹ 2,63,45,130/- had been deposited demonization period in the bank account of M/s Sri Satya Sai Fuels, Prop: Murli Manohar Singh vide A/c No. 0502008700004006, of Punjab National Bank during

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A), wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of delay of 105 days.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld. AR instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee be restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A) after condoning the delay as the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is not on merit, rather he dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issue on merit. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that the delay of 105 days was bonafide and there was no intention of the assessee to cause the delay.

Contrary to that the ld. DR supported the impugned order thereby submitting that assessee has been given sufficient opportunity to file reply but assessee neither file any reply nor file any condonation petition before the ld. CIT (A).

Upon hearing the submission of the respected parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal

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