##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA Nos.224/SRT/2025

Assessment Year: (2017-18)

(Hybrid hearing)

Pravinbhai Odhavjibhai Vs. ITO,

Mangukiya, Ward – 3(2)(2),

54, Gayatri Parivar -3/B, Katargam Surat

Surat - 395004

èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AOKPM2448C

(अपीलाथ(cid:334)/Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) /Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Chirag A. Bhalani, CA

Respondent by Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 18/11/2025

Date of Pronouncement 26/12/2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 11.10.2024

by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

Centre, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. The learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on the facts of the case by

passing the ex-parte order.

2. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) ought to consider the Facts, records available on the face

of record before passing the order but the Ld. CIT(Appeal) Fails to consider the

same and passed the order

3. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) ought to consider the Circular Instruction No. 03/2017

dated 21-02-2017 but fails to consider it and passed the order

ITA No.224/SRT/2025/AY.2017-18

Pravinbhai Odhavjibhai Mangukiya

4. The learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in law by addition of Rs.77,03,326/- as an

unexplained cash credit u/s u/s 69A of the Act and assessed the income 115BBE

of the Act.

5. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law by passing the order for levied of

interest u/s 234A,234B,234C,234D of the act

6. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law by Intimating to impose the penalty u/s

274 r.w.s. 271AAC of the Income-tax Act.

7. Your appellant craves liberty to add, to alter, to modify, to amend or to

withdraw/delete any of the grounds of appeal at any time, on or before the

hearing of appeal.”

3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 66 days in filing

of this appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of the delay. In

the petition, the appellant submitted that order u/s 250 of the Act was

communicated on 10.12.2024. The notices were being sent electronically and

the e-mails sent to the applicant were not received due to e-mails being marked

as SPAM. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was passed ex-parte

and the appellant came to know while accessing the Income-tax portal. The

appellant requested the delay was neither intentional nor wilful.

3.1 On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld.

Sr. DR) for the revenue did not have any objection and submitted that the

Bench may decide the matter as it thinks fit.

3.2 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on

record. We find that delay in filing appeal was unintentional and the appellant

does not seem to benefit from such delay. It is settled that when substantial

justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause of

substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to

2

ITA No.224/SRT/2025/AY.2017-18

Pravinbhai Odhavjibhai Mangukiya

have vested right in injustice being done because of an non deliberate delay.

Accordingly, the delay is condoned and admitted for hearing.

4. During the course of hearing, the appellant filed an application seeking

admission of additional evidences in case of assessee for AY 2017-18. These

additional evidences include bank statement of Kotak Bank, bank book of Kotak

Bank, cash statement showing cash deposit and cash withdrawal before

demonetization and after demonetization, computation of income as well as

return of income for the AY 2017-18. The appellant submitted that the aforesaid

additional evidence could not be placed before the CIT(A) since the appellate

order was passed e