YASHWANT NAMDEV PAWAR,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGLI

14. Prayer I Most humbly pray that learned Assessing officer issued Notice U/s 148 is without authority of law, hence The order passed needs to be quashed. 2) GROUND No.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Authorities erred in making addition of Rs. 2,28,68,119/- U/s 69A Being entire credit in bank account without giving natural justice to the case. 2.1) During the year under consideration assessee was dealing in soyabean, his average margin in total turnover was 0.30 % of total receipt 2.2) From the Bank account statement also it becomes clear that nearabout same amount has been debited from that bank account Prayer I Most humbly pray that learned Assessing officer has not given any natural justice to the case and order has been passed without following mandate of law, hence The order passed needs to be quashed. 3) GROUND No.3 The appellant craves leave to add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of Appeal

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading of soya seeds, grains etc and has furnished its return of income on 03.08.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,55,580/-. On the basis of information that the assessee has deposited substantial cash of Rs.2,28,68,119/- in his account to 1742/PUN/2025 maintained with Shri Renukamata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee has not furnished any return in response to the above said notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) and show cause notice were issued to the assessee along with questionnaire. In the absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by determining total income at Rs.2,31,23,700/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.2,55,580/-. The above assessed income includes addition u/s 69A of the Act of Rs.2,28,68,119/- as unexplained money deposited in Shri Renukamata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited.

Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appeal was filed belatedly i.e. with a delay of 176 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the delay and without going into merits of the case dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. to 1742/PUN/2025 8. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR further submitted that the erstwhile counsel of the assessee prepared an email at the time of registration of his PAN Number and the password was not known to the assessee and therefore the assessee was not having any knowledge of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and could not know that such an order has been passed in his case. Ld. AR submitted that as soon as the assessee came to know about the ex-parte order, he immediately contacted a consultant who prepared and furnished the appeal, however with a delay of 176 days. All these facts were brought in the knowledge of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not convinced and dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without going into merits of the case. Ld. AR accordingly requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to direct Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay & decide the appeal on merits of the case. to 1742/PUN/2025 10. Ld. DR appearing form the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities, however did not oppose the request of the assessee to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for deciding the appeal afresh.

We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that admittedly the appeal was filed belatedly before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however the reasons for delayed filing of appeal were sufficiently explained, which were not considered sufficient by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay without going into merits of the case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit & Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have decided each & every ground raised by the assessee after condoning the delay. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set-aside order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to condone the delay and decide appeal afresh as per fact and law after providing to 1742/PUN/2025 reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents/evidences/explanation in support of grounds of appeal

without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.