EKTA PETROLIUM,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), VADODARA

O R D E R

PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM:

2. There was delay of 235 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for the delay. It is submitted that the appeal papers were handed over to the consultant for necessary compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the consultant neither complied before the Ld. CIT(A) nor informed the assessee about the order (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ekta Petrolium vs. ITO Page 2 of 5 passed by him. It was only when the penalty order under Section 271AAC of the Act was received, that the assessee came to know about the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the assessee had approached another counsel and filed the present appeal. In the process, there was this delay of 235 days. It was submitted that the delay was not intentional. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned.

3. The assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. is void, illegal and without jurisdiction.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made u/s.68 of the Act by the Ld. A.O when the impugned amount is already been offered to tax as sales.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made U/S 68 of the Act by the Ld. A.O. of Rs.78,79,000/-

6. Ms. Hetvi Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not adjudicated by him on merits. She explained that the non-compliance was due to the fault of the counsel, for which the assessee should not suffer. The Ld. AR, therefore, requested that another opportunity may be allowed to the assessee by setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

7. Per contra, Shri R P Meena, Ld. Sr. DR had no objection, if the matter was set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee.

8. We have considered the request of the assessee. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed as many as six opportunities to the assessee but no compliance was made before him on any of the occasion. The (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ekta Petrolium vs. ITO Page 4 of 5 assessee has submitted that no compliance in the appeal proceeding was due to the fault of the counsel. The assessee cannot escape by merely placing the blame on the counsel. It is a settled law that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground. When the appeal was filed by the assessee, it should have been careful enough to enquire about the status of the pending appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was the duty of the assessee to watch its affairs before the CIT(A). The assessee was aware of the pending appeal, no care was exercised to enquire about the status of appeal and the assessee has only tried to shift the responsibility on its lawyer. The assessee was certainly negligent and its act was lethargic. We are not convinced with the explanation of the assessee regarding non-compliance before the appellate authority. We, therefore, direct the assessee to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- which should be deposited to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of cost, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow another opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account and, thereafter, adjudicate the grounds taken in the first appeal on merits. The assessee is also directed to comply before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of set aside proceeding and to bring on record the evidences to explain the cash deposits. The assessee is also directed to respond to the queries of the CIT(A) and furnish the documents and clarifications as required by him. In case the assessee does not make compliance in the course of set aside appeal proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) will have liberty to pass the order on merits, on the basis of the materials available on record.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 10th December, 2025.