SHRI RAMNIKLAL HIRJI PATEL,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2, BHUJ, BHUJ-KUTCH

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs. RS.9,00,000/-. Treating as from unexplained source. The Ld CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same. The same needs cancellation.

The registree of this Tribunal informs that there is a delay of 199 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay support by the affidavit, relevant para contain reasons for the delay, the same is reproduced. “2.1. The assessee is senior citizen and suffering from high blood pressure and also suffering from prostate problem and due to this he is unable to attend his work regularly because of such illness.

That the Ld. AR of the assessee also draw out attention towards the judgement passed by the Supreme Court has, in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC). On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal filed after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone the delay, and admit the appeal and proceed further for hearing.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is reopening notices u/s. 148 on 25.11.2016 was issued and reasons for reopening mentioned under: “As per information assessee has sold the property worth register value of Rs. 6,50,000/- as against market value/ Jantri value of Rs. 13,08,200/-. Accordingly, assessee offered fewer amount of Rs. 6,58,200/- (Rs. 13,08,200/- less Rs. 6,50,000/-) as required by the provisions of the section 50C of the I. T. Act, 1961.”

The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 31.10.2017 in the office of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal after giving due notices, the assessee did not filed in submission or response to the notices on 08.06.2023.

That the assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee was having no knowledge about the proceedings, going on before the Ld. CIT(A) and requested for an opportunity may kindly be granted.

On the contrary, the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue has relied on the judgement of the Ld. CIT(A) and not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR of the assessee.

We have heard both the Ld. AR of the assessee and Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue. We noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued notices on 08.01.2021, 23.08.2022, 11.05.2023 and 23.05.2023. In response to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not reply or submitted any requisite document/evident. The ex-parte order of Ld. CIT(A) is silent on service of the notice upon the assessee. We note that Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal as per mandate of provisions u/s. 250(6) of the Act. However, we are of the view, that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A). We noted that the assessment order was also passed an ex-parte by the Ld. AO. We therefore in the interest of justice, giving an opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the Authority. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity to the assessee.