GANI LATHIFSAHIB SHAKILA BANU,TRICHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), TRICHY

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.

We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 465 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit stating that against the impugned order, the assessee preferred writ petition and vide order dated 19.03.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.5477 of 2025 and the Hon’ble High Court of Madras directed the assessee to prefer an appeal before the ITAT. Thereafter, the assessee was under medical treatment and produced medical certificate on record. We find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

We note that no representation whatsoever made before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), which is clear from para 10 of the assessment order and para 7.1 of the impugned order.

The ld. AR Shri Aarif, CMA prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing officer as the assessee is ready to bring on record evidences in support of her claim before the Assessing officer.

The ld. DR Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT did report any objection.

On perusal of the assessment order, we note that the Assessing Officer made addition on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act for want of evidence, which is admitted by the ld. AR. The ld. AR referred to page 22 of the paper book and submits that the said evidence of bank statement was not there before the Assessing Officer in respect of addition made thereon under section 69A of the Act. Therefore, considering the said evidence filed before the Tribunal, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file the evidence, if any in support of her claim. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.