Loading ITAT cases…
4 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal observed that while the assessee's conduct appeared non-compliant, the appeal was filed in 2017 and considered after a significant delay, particularly during the Covid-19 period. The Tribunal noted that due to the absence of relevant documents and submissions, the issues were not adjudicated properly.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the Assessee's reasons to be bonafide and unintentional. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had not made compliance in the previous appeal before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner, leading to an ex-parte decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. The Tribunal observed a mismatch in the amounts considered by the authorities and the actual investment made by the assessee. The assessee established a plausible source for the investment through beauty parlor earnings, savings, gifts, and bank withdrawals.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. This procedure favored the assessee for a remand.