SHRI ABDUL WAHAB WAJIDALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO-31(1)(1), MUMBAI

Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 03/11/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 36,49,333/- made by the learned AO u/s 69A as unexplained money. 2.The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the applicability of higher tax rate u/s 115BBE levied by the learned AO

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest levied u/s. 234 by the learned AO.”

2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee fairly submits that there is delay of about 22 months in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Though, the (AY: 2017-18) Shri Abdul WahabWajidali Khan registry has not issued any defect notice. The assessee has filed its own affidavit in explaining the delay. The assessee engaged Shri Kiran B. Mehta, CA, for assessment as well as for filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). The appeal was filed on 15/01/2020. Shri Kiran B. Mehta died in Covid-19 pandemic. While filing appeal, Shri Kiran B. Mehta has given his own email id which was related to his associate. Thus, no communication was received to the assessee.The assessee realised about passing of the assessment order when recovery proceeding was initiated in the month of October, 2025. The assessee immediately after downloading impugned order, filed appeal before the Tribunal. There was no intentional or deliberate delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicatedthe various grounds of appeal on merit. Even the assessment was completed for the want of proper compliance, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer. He undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in making timely compliance.

3. On the other hand, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative (SR. DR) for the revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that assessee was allowed fair and reasonable opportunity by lower authorities.

4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of condonation of delay in filing of appeal. We find that before us, the ld. AR vehemently argued that assessee has engaged Shri Kiran B. Mehta, CA who died in covid-19 pandemic. On perusal of the record, we find that assessee filed first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 15.01.2020. The ld. CIT(A) issued various show (AY: 2017-18) Shri Abdul WahabWajidali Khan cause notice in January, 2021 and thereafter in July 2023 to October, 2023. No compliance was made by the assessee. Thus, appeal was dismissed in ex parte proceeding. Considering the facts and the circumstances explained before us, we find that delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal in not intentional. Hence, the delay in filing appeal before Tribunal is condoned. We further find that non- compliance before the ld. CIT(A) was due to death of Shri Kiran B. Mehta, CA. Further, assessment was also completed under section 144, therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the issue on merit. Needless to direct tat before passing the order afresh, the Assessing Officer shall allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.