IDRISH KHAN,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), NAGPUR

Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 469 days in filing the instant appeal. Affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the reasons mentioned in the affidavit, which is mainly on account of assessee was not having well versed with the online system and also not aware about the dates fixed for hearing, he did not represent before the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee came to know about the impugned order only after recovery proceedings are initiated. We find that sufficient cause prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal in time and the delay is not intentional and therefore adopting justice oriented approach and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), hereby condone the delay of 439 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit it for adjudication.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Due to non-compliance, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO.

Learned counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that Ld. AO erred in making the addition on sale of immovable property despite the fact that the immovable property did not belong to nor was sold by the assessee during the financial year relevant to the assessment year, therefore, prayed for restoration of (Idrish Khan) the issues raised in this appeal to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh adjudication.

On the other hand, Ld.DR though supported the orders of the lower authorities, but did not object to the prayer of the assessee for remitting the issues to the file of Ld.JAO.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions advanced by both sides and have thoroughly perused the material available on record. Upon due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee, it is observed that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is an ex parte order, as the assessee failed to appear on the dates fixed for hearing before the appellate authority. It has also been contended by the assessee that no immovable property was sold during the relevant period, which, if substantiated, goes to the root of the matter. In the interest of justice and in order to provide the assessee with a fair and reasonable opportunity to present his case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the entire matter to the file of the JAO for denovo adjudication. The JAO shall examine all the issues afresh, in accordance with law, after duly considering the submissions and evidences that may be furnished by the assessee. It is further directed 4 (Idrish Khan) that the Ld. JAO shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the assessment order. At the same time, assessee is also advised to remain vigilant and to cooperate in the proceedings by attending hearings as required and by refraining from seeking unnecessary adjournments, except where justified by reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal