ABDUL KADIR IBRAHIM ANTULE,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANVEL, PANVEL

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal, holding the same to be delayed by 177 days time, thereby being non-compliant to the provisions of section 249(2) of the 1. Tax Act 1961, not appreciating that the limitation period for filing of appeal stood extended by the order of the Hon. Supreme court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, 441 ITR 722 (SC) and therefore the appeal filed was well within time and there was no breach of section 249(2) of the L. T. Act, 1961 and accordingly the appeal was required to be heard and decided on merits on the basis of written submission filed on 8 January 2024. The dismissal of appeal being unjustified may kindly be overturned and appeal heard on merits.

2. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal holding the same to filed beyond the time limit prescribed by section 249(2) of the 1. T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case and not seeking any clarification from the appellant on the issue.

3. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in not deciding the appeal on the basis of merits of the appeal explained vide written submission dated 8 January 2024 and for this reason the order of the Hon. CIT(A) was bad-in-law and required to be set aside.

4. The Hon CIT (A) erred in upholding the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the LT Act, 1961 without first serving on the appellant, a valid notice u/s 148 of the 1.T. Act, 1961 and therefore the order of assessment is bad in law and is required to be quashed on that account.

5. The Hon CIT (A) erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment u's 147 of the 1. Tax Act 1961, by issue of the notice u/s 148 on 19.03.2020, which action of the id AO being not as per law, the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 be held to be bad-in-law and the asst, order flowing therefrom, being the order u's 143(3) r.w.s. 147 now under appeal be also held to be invalid and bad in law and may please be struck down on that count.

6. The Hon CIT (A) erred in upholding addition of Rs. 12,46,400/- made by Id AO as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961, on account of Pen branch, not appreciating the nature of business of the appellant and that the said cash deposits were the business receipts of his proprietary catering business. The addition of Rs. 12,46,400/- was not merited by law and may therefore be kindly deleted.

at any time before the decision of the appeal.

3. Registry has informed that the instant appeal is barred by limitation by 201 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the affidavit placed at page 26 of the appeal stated that the assessee is suffering from hemiplegia due to which one side of his body suffers from paralysis. The physical movement of the assessee is severely restricted due to his illness and the assessee is under medical treatment since 18.05.2024. After hearing Ld. DR and going through the reasons stated for the delay in filing of the appeal, we are of the considered view that considering the medical condition of the assessee and that the assessee would not have been benefitted by delaying the appeal, we hereby condone the delay and admit it for adjudication and for the same we rely upon the judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing the appeal by 201 days. The said delay deserves to be condoned as the same was during the Covid-19 pandemic. A prayer has been made to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Ld. DR did not oppose the request of Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

Order pronounced on this 13th day of May, 2025.