RAMESHBHAI KALIDAS VAISHNAV,RAJASTHAN vs. ITO-WARD 41(3)(3) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Rameshbhai Kalidas Vaishnav, is an individual. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for A.Y. 2019-20 and completed the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated credits of ₹44,89,583/- appearing in two bank accounts of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and also added savings bank interest of ₹1,132/-. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income at ₹44,90,715/-. According to the assessee, the reassessment proceedings were conducted ex parte because the notices had been sent to his old address at Mumbai, whereas he had shifted to and was residing at Amet, Rajasthan.

The assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), NFAC, on 10.03.2026. There was a delay of 712 days in filing the appeal. The assessee sought condonation of the delay and explained that he had shifted from Mumbai to Rajasthan and, therefore, was not aware of the assessment proceedings and passing of the assessment order. The learned CIT(Appeals), however, observed that the reasons given for the delay were general in nature and were not supported by documentary evidence. CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the principles of condonation of delay and various judicial decisions and held that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay of 712 days. The CIT(Appeals), accordingly, declined to condone the delay and, without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits, dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that the learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal at the threshold on account of delay of 712 days and, therefore, did not examine the issues raised by the assessee on merits. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had shifted from Mumbai to Rajasthan and was residing there during the relevant period and, therefore, could not attend to the assessment proceedings or file the appeal within the prescribed time. In support of this explanation, the learned counsel has placed before us copies of the assessee's Aadhaar Card, Election Card and other documents showing his residence in Rajasthan. These documents, according to the learned counsel, support the explanation given for the delay.

Considering the material placed before us, we are of the view that one final opportunity should be given to the assessee to have the matter examined on merits. At the same time, the delay of 712 days is substantial and the assessee was also expected to remain diligent about his tax proceedings. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to balance the interests of both sides. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay subject to the assessee depositing a cost of ₹25,000/- with the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and producing proof of such payment before the Assessing Officer.

Since the assessment itself was completed ex parte and the assessee has claimed that he could not participate in the proceedings because he had shifted to Rajasthan, we are restoring the entire matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.