AMMANI PALANISWAMY ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

2. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal belatedly for 106 days & without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal belatedly before the CIT(A) against the order passed u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee also filed bank account statement and evidence regarding source for cash deposits in bank account and gave reason for condonation of delay, which was not accepted and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

5. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT.

6. During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the actual facts for the belatedly filing the appeal. He submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and she came to know in regard to assessment proceedings only when the AO called telephonically for the recovery of the demand. The assessee being a lady was not conversant with the technology. After receiving the assessment order, the assessee filed rectification before the AO which was rejected. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the assessee had no any malafide intention for non filing appeal within the period of limitation and she has also not got any gain for belatedly filing appeal. He further submitted that unless there is any cogent material on record to show that the assessee has acted negligently or with any malafide intention, the delay ought to have been condoned specially where huge tax liability and demand is involved. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji And Others (1987) 167 ITR 471. Further, he submitted that the evidence for the cash deposits in her bank account and source of cash deposits were also placed before the CIT(A) but the ld.CIT(A) has not considered the same. He requested that the delay may be condoned and the matter may be sent back to the AO for fresh assessment and undertook to pursue the matter.

7. The ld.DR objected for sending back the matter before the AO and submitted that ample opportunity was granted by both the authorities but assessee could not avail the benefit.

8. After hearing rival contention and facts submitted by the ld.AR of the assessee for belatedly filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as narrated above and also relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supra) we hold that there was sufficient reason for belated filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) and condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). We have also gone through the bank statement and notice that the assessee has made huge cash transaction on different dates. In the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the AO with a direction for redoing fresh assessment and decision as per law and also to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate her case before the AO with cogent materials and further direct not to seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th July, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (George George K) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Vice President Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 12th July, 2023 Vms Copy to:

1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file

By order Asst. Registrar/ITAT, Bangalore

3. Date on which the approved draft comes to Sr. P. S .…………………………….

9. Date on which order goes for Xerox & endorsement……………………………………