RAJEEV KUMAR GUPTA,KAMLA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 3(4), HATHRAS

This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 passed in Appeal No. CIT (A), Aligarh/10054/2018-19 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), wherein the learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte, confirming the addition of Rs.14,30,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash deposit in assessee’s bank account vide assessment order dated 22.12.2017 passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act.

This appeal has been preferred on the ground that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing assessee’s first appeal ex parte without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Perused the records and heard the ld. Representative for the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue.

At the very outset, Ld. Representative for the assessee has submitted that this appeal has been filed on 01.01.2025 against the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 by a delay of about 257 days and referred assessee’s delay condonation application, wherein the reason for delay shown by the appellant/assessee is that the mobile number and email address of appellant’s earlier counsel were registered on the Income Tax Portal and the information in respect of the impugned order/notices was not communicated to the appellant by the then counsel. It was only when an order dated 18.12.2024 was passed by the CIT(Appeals) in the case of appellant’s spouse, the appellant became aware of the impugned order and took immediate steps to file this appeal.