KUVARGIRI HIRAGIRI GOSAI,JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “ 1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in passing ex-parte order which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

The appeal is delayed by 72 days. An Affidavit dated 08/01/2026 in support of condonation of delay has been filed. wherein, it has been deposed by the assessee that his Tax Consultant had assigned the task of preparing and filling the appeal before the Tribunal, but could not file the appeal in time due to Diwali vacation. Non-filing of the appeal was on account of reasons behind assessee’s control and prayed to condone the delay and the appeal may be decided on merits. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed return of income for the year under consideration though the assessee had made cash deposit in his Kuvargiri Hiragiri Gosai vs. ITO AY : 2012-13 3 bank account held with State Bank of India, Bhavnagar during the Financial Year (FY) 2011-12. As per ITS details, the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- with SBI and, accordingly the case of the assessee was reopened. The assessee was served upon the notice issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act’). Finally, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s. notice u/s.271F for non-filing of return of income.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the AO.

On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate his claim regarding alleged undisclosed cash deposit. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, assessee failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance will be made, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the AO and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.