MARIAPPAN RAJENDRAN,THIRUVARUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, THIRUVARUR

GROUNDS OF APPEAL ITA-2185 1 The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in confirming the impugned penalty u/s 271A (1) (d) against the Appellant, as the same is entirely based on an entirely incorrect appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as a misinterpretation of the applicable law.

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has failed to appreciate that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant was prevented by circumstances beyond his control, from being able to respond to the Notices u/s 142(1), resulting in an ex-parte Order which was contrary to law.

The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in failing to appreciate that the Appellant's actions were not deliberate, and that his circumstances were also gravely impacted by COVID-19, which resulted in immeasurable disruptions to statutory compliance.

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in failing to apply the provisions of Section 273B, which mandates that no penalty shall be imposed where there is a "reasonable cause" for the non- compliance of the Assessee,

The Appellant craves leave to add (or alter) any and all applicable grounds, submissions and/or authorities that the Appellant may submit at the time of hearing.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was amongst the non-filer of the return for the year under consideration. An information received about the assessee that he has sold property for Rs. 2.1 Crores and deposited Rs. 2,83,39,140/- in cash in The Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. Based on this information a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued vide dated: 30.03.2023. However, it was pointed out by the AO that there was a single transaction of sale, but the same was inadvertently been entered thrice in the departmental portal, hence value of the transaction was 70 Lacs only and the value of the property sold as per section 50C was Rs. 89,35,714/-. As per para 2 of the assessment order ample opportunity was given to the assessee for replies and explanations to be filed alongwith relevant evidences, but in vain. Ultimately, the case was assessed u/s. 147, 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and additions of Rs. 89, 35,714/- and Rs. 2, 83, 39,140/- were made as short term capital gains and u/s. 69A of the Act respectively.

The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on twin objections, i). Appeal was time barred by 418 days and ii). No explanation alongwith documentary evidence was ever filed before the Ld. CIT (A) also. Now, the assessee being further aggrieved filed the present appeal before us. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions before us alongwith grounds take. It is observed that the appeal filed before us also time barred by 16 days. It is observed that the approach of the assessee was casual through out the proceedings before the lower authorities and even before us.

As mentioned, (supra) the assessee was never participated in the proceedings before the AO, resulted in an ex-parte assessment. In that situation after filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee has to be very vigilant and cooperative other than explaining his delay in filing of appeal. But, as observed (supra), the assessee neither explained his delay in filing of appeal nor came forward with relevant evidences to explain his transactions as discussed in the assessment order. Now, before us also, the assessee is supposed to demonstrate his willingness Mariappan Rajendran and ability to represent the matter before the lower authorities by filing relevant document/explanations and evidences for our perusal.

In case of ex-parte assessment/appeal proceedings, it is always imperative at the end of the appellant that he should come forward with the relevant information alongwith evidences. So that the authority concerned can atleast have a look of the information and intentions of the party to pursue the matter diligently and seriously this time and matter will reach to its logical conclusion. But in the appeal before us the endeavor of the assessee is not found to be as per the procedure laid down by the law. Still, this Tribunal being the final fact-finding authority believes in the theory of substantive adjudication instead of ex-parte assessment. As the matter pertains to levy and consequential recovery of Tax, we deem it fit to give the assessee a final opportunity to represent his case before the AO with a cost imposed on the assessee of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) to be deposited with the Tamilnadu State Legal Services Authority and the receipt of the same is to be filed with the Registry of this Tribunal within 30 Days of this order. In view of this, the matter is restored back to the file of the AO with a direction to carry out the assessment de- novo on similar issues as raised earlier after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to be vigilant enough this time and positively participate in the proceedings before the AO without fail and seeking any adjournment. In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In view of above, ITA No. 2192/Chny/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No. 2185/Chny/2026 is dismissed.