JOY SAHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 50(2), KOLKATA

The appeal is time barred by 305 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the assessee filed an affidavit before the ITAT dated 20th June, 2025 in support of condonation of delay of 305 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to medical emergencies of his ailing son and had to run back and forth for his treatment since 2019. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals), but the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 305 days. Hence the delay is condoned.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 01.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 7,15,380/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) dated 09.08.2018 was issued and served on the assessee. Further notices were issued on 22.07.2019 and 04.11.2019. The appellant filed some submission on 27.11.2019. The ld. Assessing Officer also issued notices (A.Y. 2017-2018) Joy Saha u/s 133(6) to other parties for collection of information. The ld. Assessing Officer on perusal of submission found that the appellant had not accounted for the transaction made through the Bank Account held with Bandhan Bank, Habra Branch in his books of accounts. Accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts and determined profit @ 5% of the total turnover. The ld. Assessing Officer also asked for the source of cash deposits of Rs. 17,26,000/- made during the demonetization period in Punjab National Bank and another cash deposits of Rs. 16,65,000/- made in Andhra Bank. The appellant before the ld. Assessing Officer failed to give documentary evidence on sources of such cash deposits. Hence, the ld. Assessing Officer added these amounts u/s 69A in the order passed u/s 143(3) on 26.12.2019. The ld. Assessing Officer also added the amount of undisclosed interest income of Rs. 1,00,727/- which was not declared by the appellant. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex- parte by mentioning in the appellant order that inspite of several opportunities given, the assessee had no evidence to substantiate the grounds taken and not even has argued with any supporting, relevant and cogent arguments/averment, constraining to dismiss the appeal as no material change has been brought out by the assessee.

At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex- parte without going into the merit of the case. The assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, he was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that in absence of any submission inspite of given so many opportunities to the assessee to substantiate his claim in support of his contention, the contention raised by the assessee cannot be accepted.

At the outset, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into the merit of the case. The assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, he was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). By considering the totality of the facts and (A.Y. 2017-2018) Joy Saha circumstances of the case, and in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him and to decide it afresh on merit. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/07/2025.