ENAYAT EBADAT HUSSAIN,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs 6989000/- of unsecured loans taken u/s 68 and treated the same as income of the appellant

The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of the interest of Rs. 26748/-debited to Profit and Loss account

On the basis of the above said grounds and any other which may be raised during the process of the appeal, the appeal may be allowed and justice should be rendered.”

Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that in this case assessment order was exparte. Similarly, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of delay. Ld.AR invited our attention to Form No.35 filed before the ld.CIT(A) to demonstrate that Assessee had filed Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. Ld.AR read out the Affidavit. Ld.AR further submitted that Assessee had a major road accident, as a result was hospitalised for the long period, when these proceedings were going on. Therefore, ld.AR pleaded that one more opportunity may kindly be provided.

Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of AO and ld.CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld.CIT(A) has held as under : “In the present appeal, the appellant has not mentioned any reason for delay in filing appeal. Since, the appellant has not furnished any genuine reason supported with any evidence to that effect, the appeal is dismissed on grounds of late filing of appeal.”

1 Thus, ld.CIT(A) has stated that Assessee has not furnished any reasons for delay. However, on perusal of Form No.35, it is noted that Assessee had filed an Affidavit. We have perused the Affidavit filed by the Assessee and observed that there were sufficient reasons for the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A).

2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13/09/2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application: Quote, “ 15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

3 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Vs. UOI [2018] 89 taxmann.com 194 (Bombay)[06-11-2017] has observed as under while condoning the delay in that case : Quote ,“ 12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it was not necessary for the petitioner to have explained each and every day's delay. On the contrary, the Apex Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice is to be preferred. The Apex Court also held there is no presumption that delay is intentional and deliberate, as normally a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay” Unquote.

4 In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that grave injustice is caused to the assessee by not condoning the delay, by ld.CIT(A). Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee shall file all details before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th April, 2025. (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 25th April, 2025/ SGR आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune.

गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,