SWARAN SINGH S/O SH DARBARA SINGH,HARYANA vs. GANDESH CHANDER GUPTA ITO WARD 1 (5) SHAMLI (UP) , UTTARPARDESH

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण
धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली
श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.7148/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2012-13)
Swaran Singh, S/o Darbara Singh,
H No. 438, Gali No. 9, Uttar Nagar, Karnal,
Haryana 132001
PAN: IHYPS-1069-E

...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant
बिाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5),
Shamli, Uttar Pradesh 247776

...... प्रनिवादी/Respondent

अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : None
प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing

:
16/12/2025

घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement
:
16/12/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’]
dated 05.07.2024, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The appeal is time barred by 403 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 403 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

2
3. Facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is an agriculturist. The assessment was reopened on the basis of AIR information that the assessee has made investment in immovable property. The Assessing Officer
(AO) observed that the assessee, along with his three brothers, had purchased agricultural land for total consideration of Rs.52,66,000/-. The assessee’s share of investment in said land is to be extent of ¼ i.e. amounting to Rs.13,16,500/-. The assessee was asked to explain source of investment. Notices u/s.142(1)/144 of the Act were issued. Since the assessee did not comply with statutory notices, the AO completed the assessment ex-parte and added Rs. 13,16,500/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate source of investment. The CIT(A), therefore, upheld the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal.
4. The assessment, as well as, the First Appellate proceedings were completed ex-parte due to non-appearance of the assessee. The addition has been made primarily for want of explanation and supporting evidence regarding the source of investment. To meet the ends of justice one more opportunity is provided to the assessee to substantiate his claim with relevant documentary evidence.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of making submissions to the assessee and, thereafter, decide the issue in accordance with law.

3
5. The assessee shall respond to notice(s) served by the AO, without fail.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tue ay the 16th day of December,
2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
धिल्ली/Delhi, ददिांक/Dated 24/12/2025

NV/-
प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपििCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी/The Appellant ,
2. प्रनिवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. ववभागीय प्रनिनिथि, आय.अपी.अथि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली
5. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Asstt.