SHRI KISHORBHAI PANCHABHAI CHAUHAN,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

The above appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)] dated 7.6.2024 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) arising out of the order of passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) under section 144 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Alternatively, and without prejudice, the addition may kindly be limited to the peak credit amount.

The Registry has flagged the appeal of the assessee as being barred by limitation by 48 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating that the reasons for the impugned delay that the assessee is a semi-illiterate and not conversant with technology, income tax law and legal proceedings. That owing to the lack of knowledge, the assessee was unaware of the issuance of notice under section 250 of the Act and consequential passing of ex parte orders. That immediately, when the assessee came to know about passing of the impugned order, due procedures undertaken and filed the present appeal. That the impugned delay is neither intentional nor due to negligence, and therefore, given the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, the impugned delay in filing the appeal may be condoned, the case of the appeal may be adjudicated on merit.

On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities, emphasizing that the assessee had failed to appear both before the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A), and thus the ex parte orders were justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, considering the submissions of the assessee regarding the delay in filing the appeal, and being satisfied with the reasons stated, we condone the delay.

We note from the record that the assessee had deposited certain cash in his accounts with ICICI Bank and State Bank of India. However, no return of income was filed by the assessee, nor was there any response to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Act, as noted on pages 2 and 3 of the assessment order. The same state of non-compliance continued before the learned CIT(A), resulting in the ex parte dismissal of the appeal.

While we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for its inaction during the assessment and appellate proceedings, in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the view that one final opportunity may be given to the assessee to present his

The assessee is also directed to cooperate fully in the proceedings and to respond to all notices and directions issued by the lower authorities, failing which the AO shall be at liberty to decide the case on merits, based on material available on record.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.