GAURAV GUPTA,JHABUA vs. ITO JHABUA , JHABUA

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 25.09.2019 passed by learned ITO- Jhabua [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment- Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal.

The case was called twice but none appeared from assessee/ appellant’s side nor any adjournment application filed. The record shows

With the able assistance of Ld. DR for revenue/respondent, it is found that the subject-matter of litigation is a small addition of Rs. 3,51,000/- made by AO on account of cash deposit made by assessee in bank a/c during demonetization period. It is further observed that although the assessee submitted to AO that he received sufficient sums from his parents for making deposit but the AO rejected assessee’s submission for want of supporting documents. The assessee contested AO’s order in first-appeal before CIT(A) but the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal on account of delay of 122 days in filing appeal. The assessee made a very short submission to the CIT(A), just in three sentences, submitting ‘ignorance of law’ as reason of delay and making a humble prayer for condonation of delay. But the CIT(A) was not convinced and did not accede to the submission of assessee. In doing so, the CIT(A) has not even considered the landmark decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC). Therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to submit better particulars to the CIT(A) for consideration of delay. Needless to mention that the CIT(A) shall consider the assessee’s submission in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji. It is Shri Gaurav Gupta, Jhabua - AY 2017-18 expected that the CIT(A) shall make consideration afresh without being influenced by his previous order in any manner. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A).

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.