H P VERLEKAR AND SONS JEWELLERS (REP. SHOBHA VERLEKAR, AMBREESH VERLEKAR),MARGAO GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, MARGAO, MARGAO

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal with a delay of 215 days. Assessee has filed affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. Precise reason stated that by the legal representative that at the relevant point of time his mother is suffering from hypertension, diabetes and severe spondylosis and was advised best rest. Due to said reason, he was fully occupied in taking care of her treatment and could not check emails. On due consideration of the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We 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 215 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of Jewellery. Assessee e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 22.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.11,68,340/-. Return processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, on 31.03.2019 assessee has revised the income tax return declaring total income at Rs.13,83,260/-. Case selected for scrutiny for the reason “ The entity has incorporated/formed during the year and the assessee has introduced significant capital (Total capital/share application money & share capital +share premium) during the year”. Valid statutory notices served upon the assessee to which the assessee furnished the requisite details. Ld. Assessing Officer on due consideration of the submission/details completed the assessee making addition of Rs.58,50,459/- as bogus purchases which is nothing but difference of purchases shown in the original return – purchases shown in the revised return. Income assessed at Rs.72,33,719/- as against the returned income of Rs.13,83,260/-.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but then failed to make any compliance to the notices issued by ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution merely confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

At the outset, ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to reasons beyond control of the assessee assessee failed to make any compliance resulting into dismissal of assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution. Assessee has submitted the written submissions relying on judicial precedents contending that assessee’s books of account are audited and the sales and purchases are genuine. That the assessee has paid the due taxes under Value Added Tax and Commercial Department has accepted the VAT returns filed by it.

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

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We have gone through the assessment order as well as the order of First Appellate Authority. It is fact that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution merely affirming the action of the Assessing Officer. Considering the factual matrix and also the prayer made by ld.Counsel for the assessee, we deem it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the assessee’s legal heirs to go before ld.CIT(A) and adduce evidences in support of its grounds of appeal. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee’s legal heirs, consider the documents to be filed by the assessee’s legal heirs and then pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is 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, Panaji 4. ‘DB’ Bench / DR, ITAT, Panaji ‘DB’ Bench ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,