Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2016-17 and is against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The assessee's appeal was delayed by 55 days due to the assessee undergoing medical treatment for severe chest pain. The delay was considered reasonable and sufficient.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 55 days and admitted the appeal for hearing. It was noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the issue raised by the assessee as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Both parties agreed that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of cash deposits and cash sales made by the AO, and whether the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to procedural irregularities.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 253(3), 253(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
सुनवाईक�तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member:
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Order (AY) 2016-17, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”,dated 28.11.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, dated 26.03.2022.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the treatment of the AO by confirming addition of cash deposits of Rs.97,88,124/- out of total cash sale proceeds of A.Y.16-17 Matel Hardware Rs.98,25,300/- ignoring the established fact that the entire sale proceeds cannot be treated as income of an assessee. 2. The CIT(A) erred in making baseless addition of entire cash sales of Rs.97,88,124/- wrongly presuming that the assessee got 100% net profit from the entire cash sales. Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or withdraw the ground(s) of appeal at the time or before the hearing of this appeal.”
The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 55 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) and 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel has explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee was suffering severe chest pain and was badly engaged for his medical treatment ( relevant medical papers have been submitted before the Bench). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted medical report for perusal of the Bench, and stated that delay was neither wilful nor deliberate, but due to the circumstances beyond his control. The Ld. Counsel requested that in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned and appeal may be decided on merit.
On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue submitted that Bench may decide the matter of condonation of delay as it thinks fit.
We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. In the affidavit, it is submitted that assessee was undergone medical treatment and as a result, the assessee could not file appeal before the Tribunal in time. We note that reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Considering all these facts, we find that delay was not deliberate and intentional, but it was due to medical reason (treatment) of assessee. The Ld. Sr-DR has also not
At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 and Ld.CIT(A) passed appellate order in ex-parte proceedings. The Ld. Counsel submitted that now the assessee is ready with the documents and wants to furnish the details and documents before lower authorities. The Ld. Counsel therefore prayed before the Bench that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before Assessing Officer.
The Ld. Sr-DR of the Revenue has raised no objection, if the matter is remitted back to the file of lower authorities.
We have heard both the parties and gone through materials available on record. We note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee requested to set aside the order of CIT(A) and requested the Bench that matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and undertook the responsibility that all the details would be filed before Assessing Officer, if another opportunity is granted to the appellant. The Ld. Sr-DR has also no objection if the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer. In view of the above facts, we deem it proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting adequate and fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is needless to say that assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences, as deemed relevant before the Assessing Officer at the time of de novo assessment A.Y.16-17 Matel Hardware proceedings, in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order, which is fair and judicious. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced on 18/08/2025 in the Open Court.