NANDU BABURAO JADHAV,NASHIK, MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, MAHARASHTRA

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I note that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of providing Telecom services and deriving commission income. Assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited for providing prepaid distribution services. Assessee filed the return for A.Y. 2020-21 on 05.01.2021 declaring income of Rs.5,38,540/- which was further revised to Rs.4,66,990/- in the revised return filed on 08.01.2021. Thereafter, case of the assessee reopened based on the e-verification report uploaded on the insight portal which shows that assessee has deposited huge cash in various bank accounts maintained by the assessee. Valid notice u/s.148 of the Act issued. There was no response from the side of assessee to various statutory notices and ld. Assessing Officer in the course of proceedings obtained relevant information from the banks by issuance of notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. On due consideration of the total credits in the bank accounts, the turnover declared by the assessee, and also the letter given by M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment proceedings and made addition of Rs.25,91,093/-, determining the net profit of the assessee at 8% on the undisclosed turnover of Rs.3,23,88,674/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with a delay of 24 days which has not been condoned by ld.CIT(A). Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay has been properly explained before the First Appellate Authority, however, without taking cognizance of the ‘reasonable cause’ ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and has not condoned the delay of 24 days. Taking pragmatic approach, the delay deserves to be condoned. He therefore prayed for remitting the issue to the file of ld.CIT(A) as the same being an exparte order. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

From perusal of the record, it is ostensible that the assessment order as well as the appellate orders are exparte qua the assessee as there was no participation by the assessee in the proceedings before the lower authorities. Considering the fact that the assessee is a small trader providing basic telecom services and earning commission income which was stated to have been declared. It is also claimed that assessee has demonstrated the ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented him to file the appeal within the stipulated time. Adopting justice oriented approach and to advance the justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to condone the delay before ld.CIT(A). I therefore condone the delay before ld.CIT(A) in light of 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).

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