ABDULKHADER HASANSAB KARADIGUDDA,DHARWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), HUBLI

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.6.2023, impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/ Commissioner of Income Tax (A) (in short ‘Commissioner’ ) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act (in short ‘The Act’) for the assessment year 2017-18.

In the instant case, the assessment order dated 30.9.2019 was passed u/s.144 of the Act, whereby an addition of Rs.7,58,000/-being unexplained cash deposit u/s.69A of the Act, has been made.

The Assessee being aggrieved though challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, failed to comply with the notices and/or failed to file any submissions and documents and therefore, in the constrained circumstances and having left with no option, the Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order affirmed the aforesaid addition by dismissing appeal of the Assessee.

The Assessee therefore being aggrieved against the impugned order has preferred this appeal challenging the impugned order.

At the outset, we observe that there is delay of532 days in filling of this appeal, on which the Ld. counsel for the Assessee by drawing our attention to the medical documents {pages 68 to 72 of paper book} has claimed that the Assessee had suffered with paralytic attack/stroke and, therefore, was unable to appear before the Appellate Authority and was also unable to file the appeal under consideration within the time limit and, therefore, the delay of 532 in filing the instant appeal may be condoned and the case be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer so that substantial justice would met.

On the contrary, ld. Standing Counsel representing the Revenue refuted the claim of the Assessee.

Having considered the reason stated with medical documents as demonstrated by the Assessee for condonation of delay, prima facie appears to be bonafide, reasonable, unintentional and sufficient cause and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we are inclined to condone the delay of 532 days. Thus, the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Coming to the merits of the case, as observed above, the Assessee due to health issues, remained unrepresented before the Ld. Commissioner and it is an admitted fact that in the absence of relevant submissions and documents, the issue involved in this case remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner by both the Authorities below and therefore for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand this case to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh but subject to deposit of a token cost of Rs.500/- in the Revenue Department under “other head” within 15 days from the receipt of this order.

We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to file relevant submission and documents, as would be essential for proper and just decision of the case. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

Thus, in the aforesaid terms, the case is remanded to the file of AO for decision afresh accordingly.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 13thday of August, 2025