PURNA CHANDER RAGAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

There is a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee as well as medical certificate. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that due to health issues and assessee was undergoing the treatment, the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation and therefore, there is a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal. He has thus pleaded that the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal be condoned.

On the other hand, the learned DR has not seriously objected to the condonation of delay as the assessee has filed the medical record showing the unwellness of the assessee.

We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee along with the medical record. The assessee was not well during the relevant period in the month of August and September 2025 and was undergoing the treatment. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are satisfied that the assessee was having ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, in the interest of justice, the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal of assessee is admitted for hearing and adjudication.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that both the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned orders ex-parte as the assessee could not produce the relevant details and supporting evidence to explain the source of payments of the credit card. She has further submitted that assessment proceedings were going in during the Covid 2019 pandemic therefore, the assessee could not submit the details and thereafter due to lack of communication the assessee could not participate in the proceedings before the learned CIT(A). Thus, she has pleaded that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to produce all the relevant details and evidence before the Assessing Officer for verification and examination towards explaining the source of the credit card payments. She has also referred to the petition filed by the assessee for admission of the additional evidence filed before the Tribunal.

On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the assessee is a non-compliant and there was no response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer or to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the conduct of the assessee shows gross negligence towards the proceedings pending before the authorities below. He has thus contended that further opportunity to the assessee shall not be given and if at all it is given, it should be subject to some cost.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessment order was passed ex-parte u/sec.144 of the Act when there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. It is also not disputed that the assessment proceedings were pending during the Covid-2019 pandemic period and order was passed on 28.04.2021. Even before the learned CIT(A), there was no participation on behalf of the assessee, and the impugned order was passed by the learned CIT(A) ex-parte when there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has now filed a petition for admission of additional evidence running into 133 pages comprising of the bank account statement, ledger account of sundry creditors, Traces copy of SFT payments, credit card payments details and credit card payment statements for the relevant period. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has taken the duplicate transactions reported in Form-26AS and therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is arbitrary and unjustified while the actual transactions are not taken into consideration. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, when both the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte orders for want of relevant details and supporting evidence and assessee has now filed the supporting evidence in the shape of additional evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the additional evidence filed by the assessee is required to be verified and examined at the level of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer subject to cost of Rs.5000/- [Rs. Five Thousand Only] to be paid to ITAT Tax Bar Association, Hyderabad within a period of one month from the date of this order. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify and examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee and then, decide the matter as per law, after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

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