AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is a batch of four appeals pertaining to the same assessee. All the four appeals are time barred by 233 days. For the sake of convenience, ITA 7466 pertaining to AY 2011-12 is being dealt with as the lead case.
In this case, the assessee has filed a detailed petition seeking condonation of delay. For the sake of brevity, the salient point from this petition are being captured. It has been stated that the assessee has under gone a complex brain surgery on 14.03.2016. However, in 2022 the assessee’s condition worsened, with a second surgery on 15.03.2023. During this period there was also a serious dispute in the assessee’s family. Only after the assessee could recover in health then the appeals have been filed. In all the remaining three appeals also similar reasons have been given.
Considering the reasons given in the petitions seeking condonation of delay, the delay of 233 days in all the appeals is condoned.
ITA 7466 (lead case) arises from order dated 12.09.2025 passed u/s 250 by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon. In para 3 of the impugned order, it is mentioned that the assessee has not attended to the proceedings after filing the appeal. Needless to say, the additions made by the Ld. AO were confirmed as under:
Rs.9,59,601/- has been added on account of jewellery found during the course of search operation on the M/s Garg Group on 22.06.2016.
An addition of Rs.14,43,617/- has been made on account of retail invoices regarding purchase of jewellery by the assessee. The Ld. AO dismissed the explanation filed by the assessee and made the addition.
An addition of Rs.4,00,000/- has been made on account of allegedly undisclosed investment in jewellery by the assessee.
While making the impugned addition the Ld. AO has held that the explanation filed by the assessee was not adequate and therefore worthy of being rejected.
The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where all these additions have been confirmed on the ground that the assessee did not comply with the notices for hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A).
Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the addition on merits and also challenging the assumption of jurisdiction.
Before us the Ld. AR mainly argued that due to the physical and mental problems faced by the assessee, as detailed in the petition seeking condonation of delay, the assessee was not able to make adequate compliance before the authorities below. It was argued that the assessee has considerable documents to establish the bona fides of the transactions being doubted by the Ld. AO and given another chance he would be able to prove the same.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and stated that the Ld. AO has passed a good order on merits and it deserves to be supported.
We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the assessee did make some compliance before the Ld. AO but we need to be sympathetic on the ground that the assessee was undergoing severe mental and physical trauma at that time. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee must present all necessary documents before the Ld. CIT(A) and in case required, the Ld. CIT(A) may call for a remand report from the Ld. AO.
In the result, appeal (ITA 7466) is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Since the remaining three appeals are also on a similar footing, hence, they are also remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), mutatis mutandis, after setting aside the impugned orders in these three cases.
In the result, all these four appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.