Shri Deepak Ambadas Nagargoje vs. ITO, Ward – 2, Ahmednagar

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee's case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice under section 148 was issued. The assessee did not respond to the notices or attend the proceedings, leading the Assessing Officer to make an addition of Rs.1,02,12,720/- as unexplained investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A) / NFAC) against the ex-parte order of the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed it. The assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Irene Pereira vs. ITO, Ward–1 & TPS

  Bangalore benchAY 2016-17Partly Allowed

• Ms. Ritu Dayal VS. ITO, Ward-29(1)

• Prem Ratan Joshi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-58(7), Vikas Bhawan, Delhi-110002

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Awadh Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer (E)

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2023-24Allowed

• POOJA PRABHAKAR Vs. ITO NCW 15 (1) CHENNAI

• Late Ratanchand Manoharmal Rep. by Legal Heirs M. Chandan Bala & Others Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 17(2), Chennai