RAVIKANT KHARE,TIKAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , TIKAMGARH
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for assessment year 2013-14 against an order that upheld the Assessing Officer's additions. The Assessing Officer had determined the total income at Rs.8,21,120/- by making additions on account of unexplained money. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity by the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the delay condonation application and whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity by the AO.
Sections Cited
69A, 249(3), 249(2), 143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
(A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.37/JBP/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 against impugned appellate order dated 16/02/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049809408(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.1,80,120/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order
I.T.A. No.37/JAB/2025 Assessment Year:2013-14 2
on 25/12/2018 under section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.8,21,120/- by making addition of Rs.2,15,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and Rs.4,26,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 16/02/2023, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non prosecution.
(C) At the time of hearing in Tribunal, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, learned D.R. was heard and the materials on record were perused. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine on limitation ground, treating the assessee’s appeal as time barred. 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 aforesaid facts, the learned Departmental Representative stated that the appeal may be decided by the Bench using discretion. In view of the foregoing, the delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is condoned and the matter is restored back to the file of
I.T.A. No.37/JAB/2025 Assessment Year:2013-14 3
the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
(D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 26/08/2025)
Sd/. (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member
Dated:26/08/2025 *Singh
Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Jabalpur
