GUNSEKARAPANDIAN PRABHAKAR,UTHANGARAI vs. ITO , WARD -1 , KRISHNAGIRI

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 05-11-2021 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.144 of the Act on 31-10-2019.

The Registry has noted delay of 279 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of affidavit of the assessee wherein it has been stated that hearing notices were sent to the earlier addresses due to which the assessee could not present his case before lower authorities. It has also been ITA No.941/Chny/2022 - 2 - submitted that the Supreme Court in its suo-moto miscellaneous application No. 29 of 2022 in Re. Cognizance for extension of limitation has excluded the period commencing from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 while calculating limitation period and allowed grace period up-to 29.05.2022 for complying with filing and other statutory compliances under the Act. In effect, there is effective delay of 104 days. Though Ld. Sr. DR has opposed condonation of delay, however, I find that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor wanton and therefore, delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

The assessee has filed impugned order along with computation of income as made by Ld. AO. The copy of the assessment order has not been filed. However, upon perusal of impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A), it could be seen that the assessee has been assessed on best judgment basis u/s 144 determining income of Rs.15.72 Lacs. The assessee did not file its return of income originally. It was noted that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.14.25 Lacs in bank accounts during demonetization period which led to framing of assessment and total credits in the bank accounts for Rs.15.72 Lacs was brought to tax. Though the assessee preferred further appeal, however, it failed to make any submissions during appellate proceedings despite being provided with various opportunities as enumerated in para 4.1 of the impugned order. In the result, the assessment was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities.

I find that the assessee has remained negligent to make any representation before Ld. CIT(A). No return of income was filed despite - 3 - the fact that there was cash deposit in the bank accounts. The assessee could not furnish any details to substantiate the same and eventually, the assessment was framed u/s 144. Further, the assessee remained negligent in making any submission before lower first appellate authority also despite various opportunities. However, considering the plea of Ld. AR, I deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case. However, this would be subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. The same shall be deposited by the assessee within one month from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same shall be furnished by the assessee to learned Assessing Officer who shall proceed to re-adjudicate the issue on merits and frame an assessment de novo.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20th February, 2023.