AISHWARYA WINES,BAILHONGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 5 , BELGAUM

Registry has pointed out that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 247 days. Assessee has filed a condonation application stating that the assessee has entrusted the matter to the Tax Consultant who failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time. All the notices were served on the e-mail of the Tax Consultant and due to mis- communication, the Tax Consultant failed to file the appeal in time. A prayer made to condone the delay in the interest of justice and admit the appeal for adjudication.

There is no dispute that u/s. 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation of the assessee therefore becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on its part in not presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time. The purpose of the limitation period is to ensure expeditious disposal of appeal; however, where the delay is shown to be unintentional and caused by reasonable circumstances, it ought to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

In the instant case after going through the averments of the condonation application, we are satisfied that the assessee has made out a case of ‘sufficient cause’ warranting exercise of discretion u/s.253(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned and admit the appeal for adjudication 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.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a firm and engaged in the Liquor business. It filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.47,520/-. Thereafter, case selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS for examination of cash deposits of Rs.34,62,330/- during the demonetization period. There was no compliance from the side of assessee to the statutory issued u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer concluded Best Judgment Assessment making addition of said sum as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.29,79,520/- as income from business and profession on the total turnover of the assessee shown in the profit and loss account. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to make any compliance resulting into dismissal of assessee’s appeal. Now the assessee has approached the Tribunal.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to reasons beyond control of the assessee there was non-compliance before both the lower authorities. He further submitted that assessee is in Liquor business and the cash deposits so made is out of cash sales made during the year. Books of accounts are audited and the authorities are not justified in making the aforesaid additions. He submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate it’s case before the lower authorities. A prayer made to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A).

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. In the instant case, we find that the assessee has neither participated in the assessment proceedings before Assessing Officer nor in the appellate proceedings before ld.CIT(A) resulting into the dismissal of assessee’s appeal confirming the additions. As can be seen from the order of ld.CIT(A), three notices have been issued to the assessee and on two occasions asseesee sought adjournment. In the present case, what weighs with us is that the assessee has indeed remained unresponsive. Nonetheless, we are of the opinion that interest of substantial justice would be better served if one more opportunity is afforded to the assessee to present its case before the ld. CIT(A), subject to the condition that the assessee diligently cooperates in the proceedings hereafter.

We therefore considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and in the larger interest of justice restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication after affording due opportunity to the assessee. 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.