AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this case, the ITAT Registry has reported a delay of 122 days. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of the said delay as under: -
“AFFIDAVIT I, Gaurav Khurana bearing PAN: AIOPK7178D, hereby duly confirm and affirm as under:
1.I, Gaurav Khurana, the deponent is proprietor of M/s Bright Spinning Millsand is solely responsible for looking after the legal compliances in respect of said business entity.
2.That I have been diagnosed hypertension and diabetes for years ago and under the guidance of medical practitioners, have been under regular medication on account of maintaining normal levels of hypertension and diabetes since then.
3.That during second half of September, 2025, my blood sugar levels started to accelerate uncontrollably with higher heart rate and blood pressure levels. However, in first half of October, 2025, said continued medical condition forced hospitalization.
4.That due to prevailing medical condition, the deponent was not actively attending office and thereby, was not in a position to co-ordinate with his tax consultant regarding finalizing the appeal to be filed before your good self. Thereby, delay of 115 days in filing of impugned appeal was not a willful delay but was owning to medical condition of the deponent.”
Considering the reasons given in the said petition the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
This appeal arises from order dated 11.07.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, while the assessee made some compliance before the Ld. AO but it is seen that before the Ld. CIT(A) there was no compliance to the four notices issued between 11.4.2025 and 4.6.2025. Accordingly, the additions on account of unverified expenses of Rs.35,22,249/-; unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act (Rs.2,35,000/- and Rs.451,28,569/-); addition on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act (Rs. 14,06,16,956/-); addition on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act (Rs.23,77,319/-); and addition on account of disallowance from depreciation (Rs.3,85,924/- and Rs.1,87,618/-), were partly confirmed at first appellate stage.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the impugned additions and has also through ground nos. 2, 5, 6, 7 & 9 conveyed a prayer for restoring the matter back to the file of Ld. AO so that the assessee can make a presentation of facts.
Before us the Ld. AR stated that due to a communication gap between the tax consultant and the assessee, no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A) and also no desirable level of compliance could be made before the Ld. AO. It was the prayer that the matter may be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment.
The ld. DR did not have any objection in case the matter was to be remanded back for fresh assessment.
We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that in the interest of substantive justice, this case deserves to be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. For this purpose, we set aside the impugned order and thereafter, as mentioned earlier, remit this matter back to the file of Ld. AO who will pass a reasoned order on the basis of the documents or submissions to be made by the assessee.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.