SANJAYJI SUMNJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the act?

At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay explaining the circumstances which led to the delay. After considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the fact that the delay involved is small and does not cause any perceptible prejudice to the Revenue, we are of the considered view that the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who was subjected to reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2018- 19During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined certain financial transactions and came to the conclusion that an amount of ₹9,37,40,789/- represented unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer treated the said amount as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Consequently, the reassessment was completed determining the income of the assessee after making the said addition.

Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the Form No. 35 Asst. Year –2018-19 - 3–

During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued several notices under section 250 of the Act on 31.05.2024, 20.06.2024, 08.07.2024, 16.08.2024, 27.08.2024 and 12.09.2024 requiring the assessee to furnish written submissions and evidences in support of the grounds of appeal. These notices were issued electronically through the ITBA system and were delivered to the email address of the assessee available on the income tax portal. However, despite these repeated opportunities, the assessee neither filed any written submissions nor sought adjournment nor produced any documentary evidence in support of the appeal.

The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the burden lies upon the appellant to demonstrate that the findings of the Assessing Officer are incorrect. Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT, and other decisions which have held that filing of an appeal is not sufficient and the appellant must effectively pursue the same. The CIT(Appeals) further observed that a judicial authority has inherent powers to dismiss a matter for non-prosecution when the party who has filed the appeal fails to pursue the same. Asst. Year –2018-19 - 4–

Nevertheless, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record. Since the assessee failed to furnish any evidence or explanation to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer and had also not filed any statement of facts or supporting documents, the Ld. CIT(A) held that there was no reason to interfere with the assessment order. Accordingly, the addition of ₹9,37,40,789/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act was upheld and both the grounds raised by the assessee were decided against the assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

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

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal primarily on account of the complete non-compliance on the part of the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The record clearly shows that the Ld. CIT(A) issued six separate notices fixing the appeal for hearing. However, the assessee neither filed any written submissions nor produced any documentary evidence nor even sought adjournment during the appellate proceedings.

At the same time, it is also a settled principle of law that an appeal should ordinarily be decided on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. In the present case, although the conduct of the assessee shows consistent and deliberate non-compliance during the appellate proceedings, we are of the view that one final opportunity may be granted to Sanjayji Sumnji Thakor vs. ITO Asst. Year –2018-19 - 5–

However, the conduct of the assessee cannot be ignored. The assessee has shown repeated negligence and lack of diligence in prosecuting the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) despite being granted multiple opportunities. Even before us, no plausible explanation has been offered for such continued non-compliance. Therefore, while restoring the matter for fresh adjudication, it is necessary to impose an appropriate cost so that such casual approach in judicial proceedings is discouraged.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for de-novo consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the issues involved in the appeal afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the material and submissions that may be filed by the assessee.

However, considering the consistent and deliberate non- compliance on the part of the assessee during the earlier appellate proceedings and the absence of any plausible explanation for such conduct, we deem it appropriate to impose a cost of ₹20,000/- on the assessee. The assessee shall deposit the said amount with the Prime Minister’s Relief Asst. Year –2018-19 - 6–

Subject to the above direction, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 12/03/2026 (NARENDRA P. SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 12/03/2026