DEEPALI MAHADEV PAWAR,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMSNET CENTRE ITO 42(2)(2)- MUMBAI, MUMBAI

At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 75 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal as stated by the assessee in its grounds of appeal. The registry has noted a delay of 103 days. The assessee has explained in ground No. 5 that, upon receipt of the impugned appellate order dated 11.02.2026, she filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act on 03.04.2026, seeking rectification of the factual errors recorded by the learned CIT(A). It has been stated that, since no action was taken on the said application for a considerable period, the assessee was constrained to approach the Tribunal, resulting in the delay.

Having regard to the explanation furnished by the assessee and considering that the assessee was pursuing a statutory remedy against the impugned order, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in filing the appeal. The Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objection in condoning the delay. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual. The assessment for the year under consideration was reopened on the basis of information available with the Income-tax Department regarding the purchase of an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.39,00,000/- during the financial year 2019-20.

During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed from the registered agreement that the assessee had purchased a residential

The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source of the cash payment. Although the assessee acknowledged having paid Rs.4,00,000/- in cash towards the purchase consideration, the Assessing Officer observed that no satisfactory documentary evidence had been furnished to substantiate the source of the said amount. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated Rs.4,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and subjected the same to taxation under section 115BBE of the Act. The assessment was accordingly completed vide order dated 18.02.2025, determining the total income at Rs.6,92,902/- as against the returned income of Rs.2,92,902/-.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 16.06.2025. The learned CIT(A), however, observed that the assessee had not furnished the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, application for condonation of delay and copy of the challan along with the appeal. The learned CIT(A) further recorded that notices dated 15.07.2025, 03.09.2025, 03.10.2025 and 31.12.2025 were issued requiring the assessee to remove the deficiencies. Although the assessee had sought adjournments on 09.09.2025 and 08.10.2025, the learned CIT(A) observed that the requisite documents were not furnished.

Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as defective without examining the grounds raised against the assessment order on merits. The relevant finding of the learned CIT(A) reads as under: "In absence of the Grounds of appeal, the statement of facts and the assessment order, the appeal cannot be processed. Therefore, the same is being considered as defective and is being dismissed accordingly."

Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee briefly reiterated the facts of the case and invited our attention to the impugned appellate order. It was submitted that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal merely on account of alleged procedural deficiencies without adjudicating the substantive grounds raised by the assessee.

The learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) had not examined the merits of the addition made by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the assessee had been deprived of adjudication of her grievance by the first appellate authority. In these circumstances, the learned AR prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The learned Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objection to the request of the learned AR for restoration of the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record, including the assessment order and the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A).

We find that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that certain documents, including the grounds of appeal and statement of facts, had not been furnished. Consequently, the learned CIT(A) has not examined or adjudicated the substantive issues arising out of the assessment order.

It is pertinent to note that the assessee has disputed the finding regarding non-furnishing of the requisite documents and has contended that

Section 250(6) of the Act requires the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of an appeal to be in writing and to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. The requirement of passing a reasoned and speaking order is an integral aspect of the appellate adjudicatory process.

In the present case, it is evident from the impugned order that the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds challenging the addition of Rs.4,00,000/- made under section 69A of the Act. The appeal has been dismissed solely on account of the deficiencies noticed in the filing of the appeal.

We are conscious of the fact that the learned CIT(A) had granted opportunities to the assessee to remove the deficiencies. Nevertheless, having regard to the nature of the dispute, the submissions made before us and the fact that the issues arising from the assessment order have remained unadjudicated on merits, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met by granting the assessee one more opportunity to pursue her appeal before the learned CIT(A).

We also take note of the fact that the learned DR has raised no objection to the restoration of the matter.

Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 11.02.2026 and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

The assessee is also directed to extend necessary cooperation in the appellate proceedings, furnish the requisite details and supporting documents as may be called for, and comply with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition made under section 69A of the Act or on any other substantive issue raised in the appeal. All such issues are kept open for adjudication by the learned CIT(A) in accordance with law.

In view of our decision to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A), the other grounds raised by the assessee do not require separate adjudication at this stage.

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