GOA DOURADA PROMOTIONS PVT. LTD,DONAPAULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal with a delay of 276 days. Assessee has filed affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. 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 276 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 Private Limited Company engaged in the business of buying and selling of immovable properties. Assessee e-filed return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs.51,24,110/-. Return processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, case reopened and reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act carried out after validly serving statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. After considering the submissions made by the assessee ld. Assessing Officer made the following additions :

Assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) but then failed to respond to the various notices issued resulting into dismissal of assessee’s appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to reasons beyond control of the assessee there was non- compliance before ld.CIT(A). He submitted that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and has not decided the issues on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, ld. Counsel pleaded for restoring the issues to the file of ld.CIT(A) affording one more opportunity to the assessee.

On the other hand ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A) and submitted that assessee is recalcitrant and did not respond to the notices issued from the year 2019 to 2024 and therefore assessee’s appeal deserves to be dismissed.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We have perused the Assessment Order as well as the order of First Appellate Authority. We observe that assessee has furnished certain details in the course of assessment proceedings but certain other details as called for by the Assessing Officer have not been furnished. The additions have been made by the Assessing Officer mostly for want of details/submissions from the side of assessee. However, considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider the documents to be filed by the assessee and then decide the issues in accordance with law. 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 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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