SUMAN GUPTA,KANPUR vs. ITO, KANPUR

The appeal filed by the assessee is beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the I. T. Act. An application dated 15/06/2024 was filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Page 1 of 4 Giving detailed description of the facts and circumstances, which caused the delay in filing of the appeal, the assessee has submitted that reasons for late filing of the appeal were really beyond her control and requested that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to condonation of delay and admitting the appeal for hearing. In view of the foregoing, and being convinced with the reasons given by assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and e-filed her return of income on 05/09/2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,74,540/-. The assessee was engaged in the trading business of pulses & animal fodder (Chuni). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason that there was abnormal increase in cash deposit during demonetization period as compared to average rate of cash deposit during pre-demonetization period. The assessee had deposited cash of Rs.89,00,000/- in the bank account between 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment at a total income of Rs.90,18,560/- my making addition of Rs.86,44,018/- u/s 68 of the Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A) against the aforesaid assessment order. Vide impugned appellate order dated 12/12/2023 of learned CIT(A), the assessee’s appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT none was present on behalf of the assessee. Learned D.R. was heard and the materials available on record have been perused.

We have heard learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue and have perused the materials on record. We noted that learned CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order as according to him, nobody has appeared on the dates when the appeal was fixed for hearing before him. Further, the order of the learned CIT(A) is a summary and non-speaking order, without discussion of merits of the additions in detail. The grievance of the assessee is that learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits and instead the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte taking adverse view of non compliance of notice of hearing issued by him. Under these facts, we deem it appropriate to restore appeal to the file of the learned First Appellate Authority with a direction pass de novo order on merits, which should be a speaking order in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 12/12/2023 of the learned CIT(A) and we direct the learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal through denovo order which should be speaking order on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.