PRASAD ASHOKCHAND KUNKULOL,AURANGABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Act whereas is filed against the penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act for the same assessment year, ie.

At the outset, we find that is time barred by limitation by 196 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating that on account of hospitalisation followed by Kidney Transplant, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time limit. It is therefore prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

After hearing both the sides and taking into cognizance of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the appeals deserve to be condoned. Here, we would like to quote the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) wherein it was held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bonafides. We therefore condone the delay of 196 days in filing the appeal and proceed for adjudication of the appeal.

The laconic facts pertaining the instant appeal are that the assessee is an individual carrying on the business as Estate Agent. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 19.11.2015 disclosing total income of Rs.38,60,570/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS. In pursuance to statutory notices issued u/s.142(1), the assessee furnished the requisite details along with submissions. Based on details filed, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee received huge unsecured loans which in majorly in cash aggregating to Rs.1,27,59,400/- which are tabulated on page 3 and 4 of the assessment order. The assessee was called upon to explain the genuineness of the above unsecured cash credits. In the absence of any explanation from the side of assessee, the AO made addition of Rs.1,27,59,400/- to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act.

Dissatisfied assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order countenanced the action of the Assessing Officer.

Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee could not participate in the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority and produce the evidences relating to unsecured loans owing to his critical illness followed by Kidney Transplant. It is therefore prayed for giving one more opportunity to the assessee to represent his case.

The ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of the authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. It is an admitted position that the assessee made partial compliance in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer whereas in the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority he remained absent which led to passing of the impugned exparte. It is also a fact that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has not decided the appeal on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the order of the CIT(A) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. However, the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has not followed the provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.