BHRIGU DUTTA,DHUBRI vs. ITO, WARD- DHUBRI, DHUBRI

First Appeal was against order u/s 147 r.w.s 1448 of IT Act 1961

CIT appeal not looked for natural justice, only dismissed Appeal on the ground of time barred, Never asked for clarification/evidences for delay only served notice of hearing u/s 250 of I.T.Act. 1961 in a format asking for clarification/description of grounds of Appeal, never asked for reason for ITA No(s). 156/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2018-19 delay (Assesse filed condonation on medical and other factual ground, but Medical duration/health condition of the Assesse not observed)

CIT Appeal issued notice u/s 250 required description for Grounds of Appeal, (Notice copy Enclosed) If Appeal not Accepted then why asked for Description on grounds of appeal. Never asked for reason for Delay in filling Appeal

Law says innocent/non-liable person should not be punished rather offender get acquittal.

CIT appeal not looked for natural justice, which is the main factor of a judgement.

CIT appeal hurridly dismissed the Appeal not gone through Exception under the Limitation Act 1963.never asked for clarification/evidences for delay

Sec-112 of limitation Act 1963 there is a time limit of THREE years for raising any suit against the Government or officials, (here in this case delay is 413 days as per CIT Appeals)

Sufficient cause of delay-these exception were made to protect the EQUITY OF JUSTICE

Sec-5 of limitation Act 1963 says Acceptance of explanation be a rule and refusal an exception.

Assessment was challenged on the ground under what Act and year of Act the Assessment Passed Assessment order not mentioned the name of Act and year of the Act.

Delay in filling Appeal was also due to disability of the Appellant due to medical purpose.

If, the Appeal is rejected, there will be a great injustice irreparable loss to the Appellant.

Appellant pray for natural justice.

If any delay is caused that that is without any malafide intention.

Any other ground that may be raised at any time for fair disposal of the case It is therefore prayed to Accept the Appeal and give the Appellant true justice."

Brief facts of the case are that an information available on the Insight Portal indicating that the assessee made cash deposits of ₹1,12,85,500/- in bank accounts maintained with the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Halakura Branch during the financial year 2017-18, but had failed to file his return of income for AY 2018-19. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 08.02.2023, followed by an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 24.03.2023. Due to non-compliance to the notice issued, subsequent notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on 31.07.2023 and 09.09.2023, along with a centralized communication sent via speed post on 18.09.2023 and show cause notices which are issued on 08.11.2023 and 13.12.2023. The assessee remained completely non-responsive throughout the assessment proceedings. To collect further information, a notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to the bank on 06.09.2023, and bank statements received in response to the same revealed total cash/credit transactions of ₹1,18,76,932/- in account no. 7148050000824 and ₹10,654/- in account no. 7148010004797, aggregating to ₹1,18,87,586/-. As these transactions remained unexplained, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') passed an ex-parte assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 15.01.2024, treating the entire sum of ₹1,18,87,586/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and added it to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 31.03.2025 against the assessment order dated 15.01.2024, which was received by the assessee on 25.01.2024. Since the appeal was required to be filed on or before 13.02.2024 u/s 249(2) of the Act, there was a delay of approximately 413 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ITA No(s). 156/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2018-19 assessee sought condonation of the delay, attributing it to a lack of technical knowledge, complete dependency on a consultant, being out of station, and medical reasons. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the reasons provided did not constitute sufficient cause as they lacked reasonable diligence and timely engagement, and were not supported by clear or legible documentary evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, uploading notices on the e-filing portal constitutes valid service, and a practitioner's negligence or generic medical claims do not justify prolonged inaction. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal in limine as time-barred without adjudicating the other grounds on merits, confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld as the assessee had failed to respond to the notices issued before the Ld. AO and the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was also barred by limitation. We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and are of the view that the delay ought to have been condoned and the appeal should have been decided on merits. Since there was no proper compliance before the Ld. AO as well, in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent the case properly by remanding the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld but did not seriously oppose the proposal for remand before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal before him for being decided afresh on merits, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if required, and thereby pass an order in accordance with law. Hence, the grounds of appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 4th June, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 04.06.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT-

CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati.

Guard File. //// By order