Tribunal allows appeals citing financial hardship and pandemic impact, emphasizing substantial justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, attributing it to financial hardships and the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals due to non-deposit of admitted tax was overturned as the assessee later provided evidence of tax payments, curing the defect. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to verify the tax payments and admit the appeal for adjudication. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate issues regarding the estimation of net profit and other incomes by the AO on merits. Appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Dismissal of appeals by CIT(A) due to non-deposit of admitted tax/advance tax as per Section 249(4) of the IT Act.
3. Estimation of net profit and other incomes by the AO.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of CIT(A) with a delay. The delay was attributed to financial hardships and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonably explained the delay, emphasizing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned, and the appeals were admitted for adjudication.

2. Dismissal of Appeals by CIT(A) Due to Non-Deposit of Admitted Tax/Advance Tax as per Section 249(4) of the IT Act:
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals because the assessee did not deposit the admitted tax/advance tax as required under Section 249(4). The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 249(4), which mandate the payment of tax on returned income or an amount equal to the advance tax if no return is filed, before admitting an appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) has the discretion to exempt the assessee from this requirement for good and sufficient reasons.

In this case, the assessee had not filed any return of income and had not moved any application seeking exemption from payment of taxes before the CIT(A). However, the assessee later provided evidence of tax payments amounting to Rs. 13 lakhs, which were made in installments before and after the filing of the appeal. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Bhumiraj Constructions vs Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that the requirement of paying tax before filing an appeal is directory, not mandatory. Therefore, once the defect of non-payment of tax is cured, the appeal should be considered valid from the date it was originally filed.

Based on this, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to verify the tax payments and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

3. Estimation of Net Profit and Other Incomes by the AO:
The assessee challenged the AO's estimation of net profit at Rs. 2,88,00,000 by applying an 8% NP rate on gross receipts of Rs. 36,00,00,000, as well as the estimation of net income from interest and commission at Rs. 3,17,048 and net income from rent at Rs. 2,21,800. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on these grounds but directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate these issues on merits after admitting the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable explanations provided by the assessee. It directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeals after verifying the tax payments made by the assessee and to adjudicate the appeals on merits, including the grounds related to the estimation of net profit and other incomes by the AO. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

---