RAM BHAGWAT RAJKONDWAR,LATUR vs. ITO WARD-1, LATUR

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 422 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay. On due consideration of the said reasons, I find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. I find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 422 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Tersely the facts of the case as emanating from the record are that the assessee is an individual and income of Rs.2,88,005/- declared in the return filed for A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.03.2014. Search and seizure action was carried out in the case of M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Society Credit Ltd. revealed that assessee has made huge cash deposits amounting to Rs.32,15,040/-. Valid statutory notices u/s.148 and 142(1) served on the assessee to which there was no compliance from the side of assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer vide order dated 22.03.2022 concluded the reassessment proceedings making addition of said cash deposits of Rs.32,15,040/- as undisclosed income u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. Income assessed at Rs.35,03,050/-.

Aggrieved assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) but then failed to make any submissions on the dates given for hearing. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal merely confirming the action of the Assessing Officer by holding as under :

At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the Affidavit filed by the assessee submitted that the assessee is working as commission agent dealing in Agricultural produce. He is educated upto 10th standard only. Notices of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A) have been sent on bfs_ltr@yahoo.co.in and udhalikpan@gmail.com which were updated by the erstwhile Tax Consultant and does not belong to the assessee. Assessee was unaware of the notices which resulted in passing of exparte orders. He therefore prayed for setting aside the issues to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. From perusal of the assessment order as well as First Appellate Order, prima-facie I find that assesee has not participated in the proceedings before the lower authorities which resulted into dismissal of appeal. Considering the factual scenario, I deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Assessee is at liberty to adduce evidence/documents in support of its case in the denovo proceedings. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update email 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 order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is 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,