Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2017-18 was filed with a delay of 67 days. The delay was attributed to notices being sent to a wrong email address. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of the appeal in limine.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the issues on merits due to the assessee's non-appearance and directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the matter after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee should be admitted despite a delay, and whether the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper hearing.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 148, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sai Baba Agency, Income Tax Officer-5(1), 35, Vishal Tower, Indore Navlakha, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ACXFS4495A Assessee by Shri Soumya Bumb, AR Revenue by Ms. Ila Parmer CIT-DR Date of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R
Per Dr. Manish Borad, AM:
This appeal by the assesse is directed against the order dated 27.11.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi for A.Y.2017-18 which is arising from the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 20.04.2023 framed by Faceless Assessment Unit Centre, Delhi.
Registry has informed that there is delay of 67 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The aassessee has submitted reason mentioned is that the notices of hearing were sent by the Ld. CIT(A) on wrong e-mail id i.e. cagovindramani@yahoo.com in place of correct email id jaysukhyani2317@gmail.com mentioned in Form No.35. The Ld. AR also submitted that the delay is not intentional and therefore sought condonation of delay. The Departmental Representative opposed the request. On going through the reasons we notice that the delay is not intentional and therefore a liberal approach needs to be taken. Thus considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) and taking a justice oriented approach, we condone the delay of 7 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.
At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for setting aside the issue on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as the assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) in limine.
The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). placed before us. We observe that the assessee is a partnership firm and assessment of the assessment year 2017-18 was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on account of the reason for deposit of cash of Rs.9 lakh during the demonetization period in the bank account held with Central Bank of India. Against the income of Rs.9,74,409/- declared in the return of income filed on 07.10.2020 and similar income have been declared in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, Ld. A.O made addition of Rs.8,20,708/- towards unexplained cash deposit and assessed income at Rs.9,18,117/-. In the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee failed to make any submissions. After going through the affidavit filed by the assessee in condonation of delay application indicates that the notices were sent on wrong e-mail id due to which the assessee failed to get any communication from Ld. CIT(A) and therefore Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt the issues on merits and dismissed the appeal in limine. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee we restore the issues raised on merits for the alleged addition for unexplained cash pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6)of the Act.
Needless to mention that the Ld. CIT(A) shall examine the issues after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.