PAWAN CHAUHAN,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-2(4), NOIDA

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 19.02.2025, for Assessment Year 2012-13.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the appeal filed by the assessee before First Appellate Authority was time barred. The assessee was asked to furnish reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. In response to directions by the CIT(A), the assessee filed reply stating that since the certified true copy of assessment order dated 29.11.2019 was obtained by the assessee on 03.01.2022 and thereafter, the appeal was filed within 30 days on 27.01.2022, the appeal is (AY 2012-13) within the period of limitation. The CIT(A) not satisfied with sketchy reason dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation alone.

A perusal of the assessment order shows that the same has been passed u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Neither there was any participation from assessee’s side nor the assessee had responded to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 148 or 142(1) of the Act. During assessment proceedings, the AO had issued notice 148 of the Act through speed post but it is not emanating from the order as to whether notice was served on the assessee or not. The AO has completed assessment invoking the provisions of section 144 of the Act and making addition of Rs.18,50,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act. The AO has mentioned the address of the assessee in assessment order as ‘A-5, Sector-3, Noida’. Even, the CIT(A) has mentioned the same address, however, while filing appeal before the Tribunal in Form No. 36, the assessee has mentioned a different address for sending the notices i.e. ‘78, Shivaji Road, Meghdoot Crossing, Meerut’. Thus, from the conjoint reading of the assessment order and the order of CIT(A) it can be made out that ostensibly the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and subsequent notices u/s.142(1) of the Act were not served on the assessee. Hence, there was no participation from assessee’s side/response from assessee to said notices. That also explains the reason for delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A). The assessee was perhaps unaware about the assessment proceedings and the assessment order. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the AO for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.