SANTOSH SHARMA,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which sustained additions made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There was a significant delay of 217 days in filing the appeal, attributed to non-receipt of communication from the previous representative.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the explanation was bona fide and the delay was not deliberate. The assessment and the first appellate order were passed ex parte due to the assessee's non-participation.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 68, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR HEARING THROUGH: VIRTUAL MODE BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM ITA No. 859/Jodh/ 2024 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Santosh Sharma Vs. The ITO 17E/766, Chopasani Housing Ward-3(1) Board, Jodhpur, 342006, Jodhpur Rajasthan PAN NO: ADAPS9568E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Amit Kothari, C.A Revenue by : Smt. Anuradha, Addl. CIT DR Date of Hearing : 31/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Thane, in proceedings under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2012–13, whereby various additions made under section 68 of the Act were sustained.
At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 217 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining that the delay was caused due to non-receipt of communication from the earlier representative, who neither apprised the assessee of the appellate outcome nor advised timely remedial action. It has been further submitted that upon obtaining knowledge of the order, the assessee promptly engaged new counsel and has been diligently pursuing the matter. A prayer was made to condone the delay in the interest of justice.
We have carefully considered the explanation offered by the assessee. In our view, the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, and the explanation appears to be bona fide. Relying upon the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], we are inclined to condone the delay of 217 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
3.1 Turning to the merits of the case, it is observed that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 30.03.2015, determining the total income at Rs.27,24,860/- by making additions aggregating Rs.24,74,870/- under section 68 of the Act on account of various unexplained deposits and investments. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to non-compliance, noting that the assessee had failed to respond to notices dated 04.02.2021, 04.05.2023, 22.09.2023, 01.02.2024, and 08.02.2024 despite repeated opportunities granted.
Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was unaware of the notices issued and that her earlier Ld. AR failed to act in time or file necessary submissions. It was contended that the assessee now wishes to present complete documentary evidence in support of her case and seeks one final opportunity to do so.
The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that sufficient opportunities had already been granted.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the assessment as well as the first appellate order have been passed in the absence of effective participation by the assessee. In the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo
adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
6.1 Accordingly, the delay of 217 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the entire matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to reframe the assessment afresh in accordance with law after granting due opportunity to the assessee to present her case.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/08/2025 )
Sd/- Sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AG Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar
