SUMAN JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SAGAR

(A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.99/JBP/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 22/03/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063171464(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income showing income of Rs.2,78,950/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order

I.T.A. No.99/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2

on 30/09/2021 under section 147 read with section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.31,67,705/- by making addition of Rs.28,88,755/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 22/03/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non prosecution.

(C) Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity during assessment proceedings. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing of appeal, although there was sufficient cause for delay. He requested that the delay in filing of appeal in the office of CIT(A) should be condoned; and issues in dispute should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative expressed no objection to this and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. Both sides were heard. Materials available on record were perused. The assessee’s application for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by learned CIT(A). From the records, it is evident that there was sufficient cause, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act because of which the assessee could not file appeal in the office of learned CIT(A) within time frame mentioned in section 249(2) of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal for decision on merits. The Assessing Officer has also not provided reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case before him. In response to a query from the Bench, in the light of the