TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 646
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....application seeking condonation of delay, the assessee has submitted as follows: - "1. The Appellant Mr. James Ivan Dantis (PAN: AHFPD2364L), aged 50 years, is non- resident. Since 2008, the Appellant has been employed at "Apex Paints Limited," located at Km. 8, Abeokuta-Lagos Road, P.O. Box 2073, Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria, where the Appellant serves as the Manager of Industrial Coating Analyst presently residing at B 702, Kailash Park, Tulshet Pada, Bhandup, Mumbai-400078. 2. The Appellant designated her wife as the Power of Attorney to sign the income tax documents and manage the income tax processes. This procedure is time-consuming as the papers were sent to Nigeria for signatures, followed by notarization and other essential tasks. 3. However, the appeal is being filed on 10/06/2025, which is late by 155 days, and during that tenure, the Appellant was in Nigeria. The delay in filing the ITAT (Appeal) had occurred under bona fide reasons and compelling circumstances beyond my control, stated as under, I. The appellant does not reside in India. He lives in Nigeria and travels to India only during holidays or emergencies. As stated in the O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji and others: 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well established that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal. In view of the above and having perused the application and affidavit filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, and we proceed to decide the same. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - "The appellant prefers an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 06/11/2024, on the following amongst other grounds, each of which is without prejudice to any other:- 1.0 The notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is in gross violation of the provisions of Section 151A, as th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the year under consideration, did not file his return of income. On the basis of the specific information as per the Risk Management Strategy, it was observed that the assessee had entered into transaction of purchase of immovable property during the year under consideration. Since the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration, an opportunity of hearing was granted under section 148A(b) of the Act. The assessee was requested to furnish the explanation, along with supporting documents/evidence, in respect of the information available with the Department. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the communications issued by the Department. Accordingly, after obtaining prior approval from the specified authority, an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed and a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 21/04/2022. However, the assessee neither respond to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act were not responded to any of the statutory notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. In the absence of any reply from the assessee, the Assessing Officer ("AO"), vide order dated 15/02/2024 passed under section 147 read....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome returned by him or in a case where no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration. Further, as regards the conditions laid down in clause (b) of section 249(4) of the Act, it is pertinent to note that there is no material on record that the assessee earned any income in India. The assessee's consistent plea is that he is employed in Nigeria, earns income and pays tax there. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the requirement of paying the advance tax does not arise in the present case. Further, the addition made by the AO was also on account of the transaction of immovable property. Since the assessee did not furnish the necessary information about the source of investment in immovable property, the AO made the addition under section 69 of the Act. 11. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs. ITO, reported in [2024] 161 taxmann.com 803 (Raipur - Trib.), wherein it was obser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he interest of justice and fair play, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits and produce all the documents in support of its claim. Since in the present appeal, the assessee did not appear before the AO and the learned CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal on technical aspect without adjudicating the same on merits, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication on merit after considering all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings and furnish all the details as may be sought by the AO for complete adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the Grounds No.3 to 7 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Grounds No.1 and 2 were not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 16. In the result, the appeal by the assessee, being ITA No. 4093/Mum/2025, is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 628/Mum/2026 17. In this appeal, the assessee ha....