RAMANJINEYULU KUMMARA,KURNOOL vs. ITO, WARD-1, KURNOOL

Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out certain financial transactions/received income, viz., (i) commission/brokerage income: Rs.10,073/-; and (ii) cash deposits in bank account: Rs.75,72,380/-, but had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 14/02/2024, was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed his return of income on 08/03/2024, declaring an income of Rs. 3,74,570/-, which, as mentioned in the assessment order, had not been processed.

Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 17/01/2024 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,38,37,070/- after making certain additions, viz., (i) addition of deposits made in assessee’s savings bank account No.32025407136 with State Bank of India, ACB Pattikonda Branch: Rs.1,38,26,992/-; (ii) commission/brokerage income: Rs.10,073/-; and (iii) interest income: Rs.590/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, as the assessee, despite having been afforded four opportunities, failed to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority, the latter dismissed the appeal on the ground of want of prosecution.

The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us.

We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record.

Shri VVS Narayana Meddisetti, CA, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that the assessee appellant had, for no fault of his, remained divested of an opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that though the assessee appellant in his Memorandum of Appeal filed before the CIT(A) in “Form-35” had provided his email address for receiving the notices/communications from the CIT(A) office, i.e., “ram.mitracomputers@gmail.com” but neither of the notices stated to have been issued by the CIT(A) office, dated 28/08/2025, 23/10/2025, 19/11/2025 and 28/11/2025 were ever dropped/served in the said email account. The Ld. AR, to fortify his contention, has taken us through screenshots of the assessee's e-filing portal account, which revealed that all notices intimating the fixation of the appeal were sent to the email account “sivakumar.bonthala@gmail.com” (Pages 28-29 of APB). Apart from that, the Ld. AR submitted that during the relevant period the assessee’s brother-in-law, viz., Mr. Yalati Satish Kumar, had expired on 14/11/2025; therefore, the assessee, for the said reason, could not look into his e- filing portal account. The Ld. AR submitted that, as the assessee, for no fault on his part, was deprived of putting up his case before the CIT(A), therefore, the matter in all fairness be set aside to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee appellant.

Per contra, Shri K Prasad, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”) relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, and perused the material available on record.

Admittedly, as had been brought to our notice by the Ld. AR, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the notices intimating the fixation of the appeal, dated 28/08/2025, 23/10/2025, 19/11/2025 and 28/11/2025 were not forwarded/dropped in the email account that was specifically provided by the assessee in “Form-35”, i.e., “ram.mitracomputers@gmail.com”, but as can be gathered from the screen shots of the assessee’s e-filing portal account, the same were forwarded to another email account, i.e., “sivakumar.bonthala@gmail.com”. Apart from that, we find substance in the Ld. AR’s contention that as the assessee at the relevant point of time had lost a close relative, therefore, he had for the said reason failed to keep track of his e-filing portal account.

Be that as it may, we are of the view that as the assessee, for no fault on his part, had been divested of an opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, the order passed by the latter dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

We thus restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to re- decide the appeal after affording a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee appellant.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.