GAYATRI STEEL,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

The Appeal is delayed by 495 days. The assesse has filed condition petition supported by an affidavit along with medical certificates stating that the appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 30/10/2023 was required to be filed on or before 31/12/2023 because of the illness of the Managing Partner, necessary steps could not be taken to file P a g e 1 | 4 the appeal before the Tribunal. However, on 09/05/2025 after getting the relief from the illness, the Managing Partner joined the duty and took step to file the appeal in ITAT –E- filing portal on 9.5.2025, which resulted delay of 495 days. It is submitted that there is no evil intention of the assessee firm in delaying the appeal. It is therefore, prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

On the other hand, ld DR opposed the condonation petition and submitted that the reason given by the assessee is not sufficient, therefore, the delay should not be condoned.

Having considered the rival submissions and condonation petition, we are satisfied that the assessee was not aware of the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and has not received any notice about the hearing of the ld CIT(A), therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the time, therefore, we condone the delay of 495 days and admit the appeal for hearing.

Facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.1,59,86,000/- in two bank accounts during demonetisation period and claimed that the source of cash deposit is opening cash balance as per books of account as on 8.11.2016. However, on examination, the Assessing Officer found that the opening cash balance as per books of account was only Rs.1,06,37,141/- and the source of differential amount of Rs.53,48,859/- was not properly explained. Therefore, the AO made addition of R.s.53,48,859/- u/s. 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A). Before the ld CIT(A), despite several opportunities, the assessee did not put his appearance and also P a g e 2 | 4 produce relevant documents in support of the claim. Therefore, ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer considering the case on merits.

At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding it afresh.

On the other hand, ld Sr DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that as there was no response to the notices to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences and submissions, ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. Before us, ld AR prayed for one more opportunity to represent the case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to his file with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld CIT(A), failing which the ld CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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