SANGITA GUPTA,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2) INDORE, INDORE

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर Ɋायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE

BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.302/Ind/2025 Assessment Year:2018-19

Sangita Gupta, 157, Indrapuri Colony Indore | बनाम/ Vs. | ITO 1(2) Indore (Assessee/Appellant) | (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AUXPG9613L Assessee by | Shri Soumya Bumb, AR Revenue by | Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing | 11.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement | 23.12.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 29.01.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 25.03.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department ["AO"] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] for Assessment-Year ["AY"] 2018-19, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

- 2. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's first-appeal on the ground that there was a delay of approx. 6 months in filing of appeal by assessee. In Para 2.2 of impugned order, the CIT(A) has mentioned as under: - "2.2 The appellant has taken plea that the he was suffering from illness and was advised for bed rest, therefore, the appeal was not filed on time. The appellant has not furnished any evidence in support of the claim and day wise explanation for delay in filing of appeal." - 3. Ld. AR then drew us to a solemnized affidavit filed by assessee making a true averment that the delay occurred due to ill health only. He submitted that the assessee has also filed a copy of medical prescription dated 12.04.2023 issued by Arpit Multi-Speciality Hospital, Indore in which there is a certification by doctor that the assessee was suffering from Typhoid, the assessee's position was poor and the assessee would need resting for a substantial period. Accordingly, Ld. AR submits that there was a "sufficient" reason for delay in filing first-appeal before CIT(A) and therefore the delay caused must be condoned. Ld. DR for revenue left to the wisdom of bench. After a careful consideration, we find that the assessee has consistently explained the reason of illness before CIT(A) as well as before us and there is no inconsistency in assessee's explanation. Further, the assessee has also filed a copy of medical prescription of hospital in support of illness. Thus, the objection raised by Ld. CIT(A) that there was no evidence of illness is also dissolved. Taking into this and having regard to the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial

justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach, we take a judicious view and condone the delay occurred at the stage of filing first-appeal before CIT(A).

- 4. Ld. AR next submitted that the assessment-order passed by AO is also ex-parte u/s 144 wherein one of the additions made by AO is Rs. 48,55,939/- on account of unexplained investment in Bitcoins u/s 69 whereas the factual position is such that the assessee made circular/repetitive transactions one after other in the nature of purchase and sale of bitcoins. Therefore, the same investment was re-circulated whereas the AO has made addition of total of all purchase-transactions aggregating to Rs. 48,55,939/-. Therefore, the order of AO is substantially wrong and high-pitched. He submitted that in the situation, it would be just and more appropriate to restore this matter at the level of AO for adjudication afresh. Both sides agreed to this proposition. Ld. DR, however, made a request to give specific direction to assessee for co-operation and representation before AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments. - 5. In view of above facts and considering the submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate

order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced by putting up on notice board in terms of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 23/12/2025

Sd/- Sd/-

(SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indore

िदनांक /Dated : 23/12/2025

Patel/Sr. PS

Copies to: (1) The appellant

(2) The respondent

(3) CIT (4) CIT(A)

(5) Departmental Representative

(6) Guard File

By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore