DHARMENDRA SUMATICHANDRA SHETH, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the mere delay of 28 days in filing the appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal in limine. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay especially when the delay was not caused in order to delay the proceedings. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay especially when sufficient cause had arisen which had caused meager delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay especially when the case of the appellant was meritorious but the appellant was not provided an opportunity of being heard before the Ld. A. O. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay especially when the case of the appellant was meritorious but the appellant was not provided an opportunity of being heard before the Ld. A. Ο. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay especially when the assessee was always provided less than seven days' time, in violation of the SOP for faceless assessment, to respond to the show cause notice issued by the Ld. Department. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not deciding the issue of the "Addition u/s. 68 read with sec. 115BВЕ towards unexplained credit in the form of unsecured loan Rs. 95,00,000/-" on merits & on the grounds of appeal raised before the Ld. CIT(A) and by not setting aside the addition made by the Ld. A. O. 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not deciding the issue of the "Addition u/s. 68 read with sec. 115BBE towards unexplained credit in the form of sundry creditors of Rs. 2,39,68,046/-" on merits & on the grounds of appeal raised before the Ld. CIT(A) and by not setting aside the addition made by the Ld. A. O.”

In this case, the Assessment order has been passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department on 25.09.2022 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,34,68,046/-, against the returned income of Rs.(-) 5,88,84,943/-, by making additions of Rs.2,39,68,046/- on account of Dharmendra Sumatichandra Sheth HUF Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 3–

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, on grounds of limitation, without dealing with the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merit.

Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 28 days in filing of the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee and also the assessee has not received the show-cause notice from the AO. The ld. AR prayed that given an opportunity due compliance will be made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Having gone through the record before us, we find that the prayer of the ld. AR can be considered. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is referred to the Assessing Officer for initiation of the assessment proceedings de novo.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.