Tribunal grants appeal, stresses substantial justice, practical approach, sets aside order for reassessment

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing substantial justice and a practical approach in condoning the 66-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the ld.CIT(A)'s order and remitted all issues for fresh adjudication, including quashing the order for reassessment and deletion of the addition of unexplained investment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Non-admission of appeal due to late filing by 66 days.
2. Quashing the order passed under section 147 rws 144 for reassessment.
3. Deletion of addition of unexplained investment of Rs. 9,05,412.

Issue 1: Non-admission of appeal due to late filing by 66 days:
The appeal arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad's order for assessment year 2012-13. The assessee filed the appeal after a delay of 66 days from the date of service of the assessment order, beyond the time limit stipulated under section 249 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee explained the delay by stating she was unaware of the assessment order. The ld.CIT(A) rejected the delay condonation, finding no reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal considered the expression "sufficient cause" as used in the Act liberally, citing judicial precedents. Given the short delay of 66 days and the condonation of 870 days in a similar case, the Tribunal held that substantial justice required a practical approach. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the ld.CIT(A)'s order, and remitted all issues to the ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.

Issue 2: Quashing the order passed under section 147 rws 144 for reassessment:
The assessee contended that the order passed under section 147 rws 144 for reassessment was bad in law. However, the Tribunal's decision on the first issue rendered this issue moot as the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and all other issues were remitted to the ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.

Issue 3: Deletion of addition of unexplained investment of Rs. 9,05,412:
The ld.CIT(A) had not deleted the addition of unexplained investment of Rs. 9,05,412. Since the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and remitted for adjudication on merit, this issue would also be reconsidered by the ld.CIT(A) in light of the Tribunal's decision on the first issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, primarily focusing on the non-admission of the appeal due to a delay of 66 days. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice and a practical approach in condoning the delay, setting aside the ld.CIT(A)'s order and remitting all issues for fresh adjudication.

---