RAMENDRA SINGH PARIHAR,NAGPUR vs. NGP-W-(2)(2), NAGPUR

Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 423 days in filing the instant appeal. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit. He stated in the affidavit that his ITR returns and the account related works were maintained by his accountant. Notices sent were not informed by his accountant, once recovery notices served, then he approached his Tax Consultant and filed the appeal on urgent basis, therefore the delay is occurred. We are satisfied that sufficient cause prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal in time and the delay is not intentional and therefore adopting a 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 423 (Ramendra Singh Parihar) days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that due to non-compliance before the Ld.CIT(A), appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Prayer is made to afford one more opportunity to go before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR did not raise any objection to the innocuous prayer made by the learned counsel for the assessee.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Considering the prayer made by the learned counsel for the assessee and also observing that the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is an exparte as the assessee failed to appear on the dates fixed for hearing on different occasions and also observe that assessee is an individual proprietor engaged in the business of transportation and the assessment for A.Y.2013-14 completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and the addition of Rs. 2,03,26,941/- has been made as unexplained credits u/s. 69 of the Act, we therefore deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that before passing the 3 (Ramendra Singh Parihar) order, Ld.CIT(A) shall grant fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take any adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause and file all the details called for by the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal