Tribunal grants relief in delay appeal, deems ex-parte order invalid, directs reevaluation.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for condonation of delay, citing substantial justice over technicality. The exparte assessment order was deemed invalid due to lack of opportunity for the defunct company to present its case. Although the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction was upheld, procedural flaws were noted. Unexplained credits were added, with the Tribunal directing reconsideration with proper evidence. Penalty proceedings were set aside pending reassessment outcome, with orders of the CIT(A) overturned for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a chance to present its case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay
2. Validity of Exparte Assessment Order
3. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer
4. Addition of Unexplained Credits
5. Penalty Proceedings

Condonation of Delay:
The assessee's appeals were delayed by 42 days. The delay was attributed to the director's incarceration, which prevented the signing of appeal papers. The Tribunal found this reason reasonable and condoned the delay, citing the precedence of substantial justice over technicality as established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Validity of Exparte Assessment Order:
The assessee did not file a return for AY 2011-12, leading to a notice under section 148. Subsequent notices under sections 142(1) and 142(1) r.w.s. 129 were ignored, resulting in an exparte assessment under section 144. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity to present its case, and the company was defunct, struck off from the ROC records.

Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer:
The assessee challenged the AO's jurisdiction, arguing that the AO did not have the authority to pass the order. The Tribunal found that the AO had jurisdiction, as the necessary approvals were obtained, but noted that the reasons for reopening were not properly recorded, and the approval did not bear the PCIT's signature.

Addition of Unexplained Credits:
The AO added Rs.2,98,56,934 as unexplained credits based on bank statements. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not deny the credits but failed to provide explanations or details of expenses. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the issues, allowing the assessee to present supporting evidence.

Penalty Proceedings:
The penalty appeal was set aside, as the quantum appeal was remanded to the CIT(A). The penalty would be reconsidered based on the outcome of the reassessment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and directed a fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

---