RATHINA GURUSAMY ANAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(1), CHENNAI

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from grocery store and did not file his return of income for AY 2015-16. As per information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee has sold six immovable properties for a total consideration of Rs.67,25,010/- during the assessment year. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and by calling for details. Since the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to the any of the notices, the AO completed the reassessment by passing an exparte order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 24.01.2024 by making an addition of Rs.67,25,010/- as undisclosed short term capital gain and by arriving total income of Rs.67,25,010/-.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 29.05.2024 with a delay in filing an appeal.

At the outset, we observed that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee with a delay of 96 days without giving any reason for delay

The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the tax consultant of the assessee has made a mistake while filling the Column No.14 and 15 of Form 35 due to lack of professional knowledge. The assessee was unaware of the income tax proceedings due to technological illiteracy and hence the assessee was not aware of the hearing notices issued by the AO during assessment proceedings and hence there was a delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of Assessing Officer as the assessee had not participated in the assessment proceedings by providing one more opportunity. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the AO had provided sufficient opportunity to appear before him. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department and the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the due date. Since the assessee has failed to participate before the Assessing Officer and also filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay, we levy cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee by condoning the delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A). Since the assessment order was passed exparte, we remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

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