SYED OMER,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual had not filed his return of income for the A.Y.2018-19 u/s 139(1) of the Act. As per information in the NMS module regarding deposit of cash of Rs.1,24,77,200/- by the assessee in his bank account, the A.O. issued notice u/s 148 on 25.04.2022. However, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the A.O. issued multiple notices u/s 142(1), but there was no response from the assessee. Hence, the A.O. passed an assessment order by making addition of total credits of Rs.4,56,40,769/- in the ICICI bank account of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. The A.O.

Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the A.O. and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, holding that the assessee has not complied with the notices issued during the appellate proceedings and has brought nothing on record to rebut the finding of the Ld.AO or substantiate his claim regarding the impugned additions. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus cast upon him to furnish the details required to complete the proceedings in the case.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the appeal proceedings before the first appellate authority was ex- parte and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution on the ground that, when the case was listed for hearing, the assessee has not filed any response. The learned Counsel for the assessee filed relevant evidences and proved that the assessee had responded to the notices issued by the CIT(A), 5 Syed Omer fixing the case for hearing on 28.01.2025 and submitted a petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal and also sought adjournment of the hearing to file relevant details, which are available in the paper book filed by the assessee. Although the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and also sought adjournment of the hearing, but the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide his order dated 28.01.2025, without condoning the delay of 348 days in filing the appeal, even though the assessee has explained the reasons by filing the petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, in our considered view, the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) without considering the petition filed by the assessee, explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal cannot be upheld. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the appeal filed by the assessee in light of petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay and also any other evidence that may be filed by the assessee to justify his case.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.