ANITA SNEHADEEP SONI,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

Date of Hearing – 02/12/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.

This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 04/10/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018–19.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) is justified in law and fact in upholding that the order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law. 2. Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) is justified in law and fact in upholding that the addition of Rs.66,46,346/– on account of purchase of Jewellery as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified.

2 Anita Snehadeep Soni

3. Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) is justified in law and fact in passing an order in breach of principle of natural justice.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and withdraw any grounds before or during the course of appellate proceedings.”

2. That the order under appeal is issued on the Assessee on 04/10/2023 because of which the appeal was to be filed on or before the 03/12/2023. However the same is being filed on 19/04/2024, hence there is an inordinate delay of 138 days in filing the appeal.

3. That, accordingly, the present appeal is being filed along with the application of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.

4. The appellant is small business woman, homemaker and all her financial transactions were managed by her husband. Her husband was unaware of the notices and order issued by Commissioner (appeals). When the recovery notice came at the permanent address of the appellant then he became aware of the demand. Therefore the appellant could not file the appeal within due time hence this delay in filling application.

3 Anita Snehadeep Soni

4. After considering the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative and averments made in the affidavit, we are of the opinion that the assessee is prevented in filing the appeal belatedly and we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Consequently, we condone the delay of 138 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit.

3. When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned A.R. appearing for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed that one opportunity may be granted by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to enable the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).

2. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that despite the learned CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assesse, however, the assessee did not appeared before the learned CIT(A) and not furnished relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).

3. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that though the learned CIT(A) granted opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its 4 Anita Snehadeep Soni case, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, we are of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate her case before the learned CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.