RANGASWAMI NAVAMANI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-4(4), COIMBATORE

Since the issues raised in both these appeals are similar and based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

At the outset, it is noted that, according to the AO, no return of income was filed by the assessee and, on noticing cash deposits in the bank as well as receipt of salary, the AO issued notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) on 01.04.2022, requiring the assessee to file the return of income. The sequence of events was tabulated on page No. 2 of the assessment order. On perusal of the same, we note that no return of income was filed by the assessee even in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, and thereafter no response whatsoever was offered to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and the show-cause notices. Further, it is noted that, having no explanation from the assessee in respect of the cash deposits and salary, the AO proceeded to add an amount of ₹86,57,200/- on account of cash deposits under Section 69A and salary to the extent of ₹14,56,821/- and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹1,01,14,029/- vide his order dated 13.03.2024. Not being satisfied with the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal with a delay of 486 days before the Ld. CIT(A), raising grounds challenging the action of the AO in making the above-said two additions. On perusal of the impugned order, particularly para No. 4.1 thereof, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine.

Ld. AR, Ms. G. Janane, Advocate, before us submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and, having regard to age-related illness, could not participate in the proceedings before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). Further, she submitted that the assessee has a fair case and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Further, she argued that

The Ld. DR Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl.CIT, argued that ample opportunities were given to the assessee in the assessment proceedings, but no compliances were made before the AO. Further, she referred to page No. 2 of the impugned order and argued that the assessee did not even file a delay condonation petition to condone the delay of 486 days. The assessee did not file any evidence showing what prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal in limine, having no delay condonation petition explaining the reasons for the delay. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the appeal and confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A).

Having heard both the parties, admittedly, as discussed above, no compliances whatsoever were made by the assessee before the AO. Further, the fact remains admitted that no condonation petition was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) with reference to condonation of delay, which is evident from page No. 2 of the impugned order. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case involved and the huge addition made by the AO, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee must get another opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A) in view of her readiness to participate without fail. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration to consider the delay condonation petition that may be filed by the assessee and condone the delay. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of her claim, and

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

We find that this appeal was filed against the penalty order passed by the AO imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of our decision in remanding the quantum appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), we deem it proper also to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the delay condonation petition and condone the delay. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of her claim, and the Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the same and pass the order in accordance with law on merits. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.