MUKHTAR AHMAD SHEIKH,BANDIPORA V. ITO WARD 1, SRINAGAR

ITA 271/ASR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mukhtar Ahmed Sheikh, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi, which was based on the assessment order passed by the AO (ward, Baramulla) for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the belated filing of the appeal by 400 days due to the appellant's medical condition, which was accepted by the tribunal, leading to the condonation of delay. The appellant had not submitted his regular return nor responded to notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulting in an assessment on a total income that included unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-response from the appellant. The tribunal, considering the circumstances and the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833865 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHARAN DASS
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 144; 69

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘DB’ AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 271/ASR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukhtar Ahmed Sheikh, Ward 2, Bandipore Kashmir 193502 Srinagar V s ITO, Ward 1, Srinagar èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent VIRTUAL HEARING Assessee by : Sh. Revenue by : Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 O R D E R Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 06.12.2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforth the Act) which has emanated from the order of the AO (ward, Baramulla) dated 13/12/2019 for AY 2017-18 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay : It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is belatedly filed by 400 days and the assessee has filed an application explaining the delay on medical issues, stating that he was diagnosed with disc-related problem in his back and was advised strict bed rest by the doctor and was unable to move out. In support of such explanation, he has filed Medical Certificate from “Sarah Multi Speciality Hospital for the period 2024 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 271/ASR/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 2 March. It is seen that the appellate order has been passed in December 2023 and it is the case of the Assessee that thereafter he has been subjected to medical attention and was on complete bed rest. He prayed for admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits and for condonation of delay on medical grounds. 3. The ld. DR has no objection considering the medical issue. 4. We have considered the application and the medical certificate and we are of the opinion that there was no intentional delay on the part of the Assessee and as such we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. Brief facts emerging from the records are that the Assessee had deposited cash (SBN) during demonetisation period amounting to Rs. 29.91 lacs but has not submitted his regular return nor in response to notices u/s 142(1). In the absence of any compliance and representation by the Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessment has been completed on total income of Rs. 44.76 lacs (including an addition of Rs. 29.91 lacs u/s 69 of the Act plus amount of Rs. 14.55 lacs being estimated business profit @ 8% of the remaining bank transactions). 6. Matter carried in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) has been dismissed in the absence of any response or submission in the course of appellate proceedings in reply to various notices issued from the office of the Ld. CIT(A). The various dates are reflected in the paragraph 5.1 of the appellate orders. 7. Now, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and the main grievance of the Assessee is that he has not been allowed proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. He further submitted that since the Assessee was hospitalised and advised bed rest, it was not possible for him to appear for hearing and representing the matter before the ld. first appellate authority and as such he prayed for opportunity of hearing. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 271/ASR/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 3 8. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the CIT(A) and has raised objections regarding non compliance to various notices issued from the office of the CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival submissions and materials on record and we find the Assessee should be allowed one more opportunity on the principles of natural justice to prove his case and as such we remand the matter back to the file of the ld. first appellate authority to allow the Assessee one more opportunity to submit documents and submissions in support of his contention. 10. We have not expressed any opinion on merits and left all issues open. 11. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 05.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (UDAYAN DASGUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “rkk” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "