DILIP DEODATTA SHETE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 16/05/2023 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to AY 2016-17.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act and further erred in treating 50% of the investment in flat owned by the wife of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act amounting to Rs. 26,00,000/-.

Appeal is barred by limitation. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal. We have carefully considered the contents of the affidavit and are satisfied that 2 the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on time. Therefore, the delay is condoned.

We have carefully perused the order of the ld. CIT(A). We find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine after issuing four notices.

We are of the considered view that even if the notice went un- responded, then also the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assured that if given a second opportunity, he will attend the proceedings and furnish all necessary details to defend the case. On such concession, we remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to attend the proceedings and furnish all the necessary details along with the supporting evidence and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh on considering the merits of the case and after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.