JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and raised various grounds challenging the validity of reopening under section 147 as well as the addition made under section 68. However, during the appellate proceedings, despite issuance of several notices fixing the appeal for hearing on multiple dates, the assessee did not file any written submissions nor effectively pursue the appeal. No adjournment was sought and no supporting evidence or arguments were placed on record before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) therefore proceeded to decide the appeal ex parte on the basis of material available on record. While dealing with the grounds challenging the reassessment, the CIT(Appeals) concurred with the Assessing Officer and held that the &277/Ind/2025 Jastej Gorowara vs. CIT(A) A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2015-16 - 4 - reopening was validly initiated after recording reasons and obtaining due approval, and that the assessee had failed to substantiate any infirmity in the reopening proceedings. On the substantive ground relating to addition of ₹90,00,000/- under section 68, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue in detail and that the assessee had failed to discharge the statutory onus of proving creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the loan transactions. In the absence of any effective rebuttal or evidence from the assessee during appellate proceedings, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Relying upon the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. P. Mohankala (291 ITR 278), CIT v. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) and Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), the CIT(Appeals) held that mere confirmations were not sufficient and that surrounding circumstances and human probabilities had to be considered. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and upheld the assessment order in toto. In the result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

The Counsel for the assessee submitted before that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished confirmations of loans, copies of income-tax returns and bank statements of all loan creditors and, upon request of the assessee, the Assessing Officer had also issued notices under section 133(6) to such creditors, who duly responded confirming the loans and explaining the reasons for advancing the same. Despite this, the addition was made, which was challenged before the CIT(Appeals).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 747 days in filing the present appeal and has explained the reasons for such delay as well as for non-appearance before the learned CIT(Appeals). From the material placed on record, it is evident that the delay occurred due to a combination of factors, namely, non-effective service and inadvertent missing of appellate notices, serious and prolonged medical issues in the family of the assessee, and the unfortunate demise of the erstwhile counsel. We are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time and that the delay was neither deliberate nor with any mala fide intention. Respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we condone the delay of 747 days in filing the present appeal.

We further note that the learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. Such disposal is not in consonance with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the first appellate authority to pass a reasoned order dealing with each ground of appeal. In the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more effective opportunity to prosecute the appeal before the first appellate authority.

The assessee is directed to cooperate fully and diligently pursue the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals). With these directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the interest of justice.

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

We observe that the facts and issues for consideration are similar for both years under consideration. Therefore, appeal in ITA Number 277/Ahd/2025 is also restored to file of CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration and delay in filing appeal is also condoned in the interest of justice.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced on 23/ 12/2025