SHRI PAWAN MUNDRA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

The ground No. 1 of the appeal is regarding decline of ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 344 days in filing the appeal.

Before us, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was due to the reason that the penalty order passed U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) was sent by the Assessing Officer at the residential address of the assessee instead of current address given by the assessee in the return of income. The ld AR has referred to the return of income wherein the assessee has given office address for communication whereas the Assessing Officer sent the impugned order at a different address which was not brought to the notice of the assessee as either the said order was received by a some lady in house or by servant who forgotten to handover to the assessee. Therefore, only when the assessee received a notice U/s 279(1) of the act he has verified through his authorized representative about the order passed U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and then filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld AR has referred to the affidavit filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that once the assessee has explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal then the appeal of the assessee ought to have decided on merits instead

On the other hand, the ld DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has considered the reasons explained by the assessee for delay. However, it was found that the assessee has failed to explain the reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit filed before the ld. CIT(A) are that the assessee furnished the address in the return of income at “C-150, Indraprasth Ind. Area, Kota, Rajasthan” whereas the Assessing Officer has given the address of the assessee in the assessment order as well as the order passed U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as “524-A, Talwandi, Kota. The assessee has explained that the Assessing Officer has given the address in the assessment order as well as in the impugned order which is the residential address of the assessee whereas the assessee has furnished the address in the return of income of its office and therefore, due to some confusion, the assessee could not ITA 911/JP/2018_ 4 Pawan Mundra Vs. DCIT receive the order passed U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which was sent by the Assessing Officer at the residential address might be received by some lady or servant at the house and who could not handover the same to the assessee. We note that the explanation furnished by the assessee is factually correct as the address given in the return of income is “C-150, Indraprasth Industrial Area, Kota, Rajasthan” i.e. official address of the assessee whereas the Assessing Officer has given the address of the assessee which is different from the official address of the assessee. It appears that the Assessing Officer has given the address of the assessee as it is appearing in the PAN data of the assessee. Thus, the possibility of the order sent by the Assessing Officer at the residential address was not received by the assessee, cannot be ruled out. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee has made out a case of reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation then the delay in filing the appeal ought to have condoned. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 344 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). We further note that by filing the appeal belatedly, the assessee could not have achieved any ulterior purpose and therefore, once the assessee has explained the reasonable cause, the appeal of the assessee ought to have decided on merits instead of dismissing on ITA 911/JP/2018_ 5 Pawan Mundra Vs. DCIT technical ground. Hence, we remand the matter to the record of the ld.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th January, 2019.