BALWINDER SINGH, KURUKSHETRA,KURUKSHETRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of ld.CIT (Appeals) in confirming the addition of ITA 820/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 2 Rs.10,35,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to the impugned order of the ld.CIT (Appeals) to submit that this is an ex-parte order of the ld.CIT (Appeals). Even before this Tribunal also, it is time barred by 533 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed wherein it has been pleaded that the assessee is an illiterate person and is not having any knowledge about the Income Tax law and proceedings. That the assessee had engaged counsel Shri Sudhir Chopra, CA before the ld.CIT (Appeals) who had filed the appeal before the ld.CIT (Appeals) and had given his own e-mail Id i.e. ca.chopra@gmail.com in appeal Form No. 35 before ld.CIT (Appeals). That the notices of hearing were issued by the CIT (Appeals) at the aforesaid e-mail Id, however, the then counsel for the assessee did not respond, resulting into the ex-parte order of the ld.CIT (Appeals). Even the assessee also did not receive any copy of the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals) and was totally kept in dark by the old counsel. The assessee himself was suffering from various illnesses and as such, could not himself enquire about the status of his appeal before the CIT (Appeals) resulting into

ITA 820/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 3 the aforesaid delay in filing the present appeal. The ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, has submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the ld.CIT (Appeals) and that the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal may be condoned.