VENKATACHALAPATHY DILIP,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3) , BANGALORE

Thereafter the AO had issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the Neelkanth Jewellers and got the details about the jewelleries purchased by the assessee. Similar notice was issued to the State Bank of India and the bank had furnished the bank account statement in which the credits for a sum of Rs. 2,72,29,137/- was reflected. Therefore the AO had treated the jewellery purchases by way of exchanging the old jewels as capital gains and the purchase value of Rs. 8,82,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee under the capital gain. The AO had, based on the bank statements, had found that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs. 2 crores to one M/s. Arattukulam Developers in which the TDS was also deducted by the developer while making the payment which was also duly reflected in 26AS statement. The AO had issued notice u/s. 133(6) to M/s. Arattukulam Developers but they have not responded and therefore the AO had treated the entire consideration as income u/s. 45 of the IT Act. The AO had also treated the cash deposits into the State Bank of India account as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act.

As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 131 days. The assessee also filed an application to condone the said delay. The assessee submitted that due to the lack of awareness in the e-filing portal of the department and also because of the election related works, he has not looked into the portal and only when a notice by post was received by him in the month of August 2023, the

As against the said rejection order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is an uneducated person and therefore he has no knowledge about the e filing procedures through the portal of the department. Further, the Ld.AR submitted that the activities relating to the state election was also prevented the assessee from following up the matters. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee had received a notice by post in the month of August, 2023 and at that time only, the assessee came to know that there was a best judgment assessment order by the AO and therefore prayed to grant an opportunity to appear before the authorities. The Ld.AR also submitted that in view of the above said reasons, the assessee has not followed up the assessment proceedings and therefore prayed to take a lenient view so that the assessee could explain the details for the financial transactions effected by him. The Ld.AR also filed a synopsis and also the notice received by the assessee through post.

The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee is not a person cooperating with the department and therefore the assessee does not require a lenient view and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

In the present appeal, the AO had made an assessment u/s. 144 of the Act for the reason that the assessee had not responded to any of the notices issued u/s. 148 as well as u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Therefore the AO

Considering the entire facts and also the assessment has been made u/s. 144 of the Act and the Ld.CIT(A) had also not decided the issue on merits, we are of the view that the assessee may be granted an another opportunity to appear before the authorities and produce the necessary documents in support of their claim. We have gone through the delay condonation application filed before the Ld.CIT(A) and we are satisfied that the assessee is having valid reasons for not filing the appeal in time before the Ld.CIT(A). We, therefore condone the said delay of 131 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. Since the assessee had not appeared before the AO as well as the appeal was filed with a delay before the Ld.CIT(A), we thought of giving this concession by directing the assessee to pay a nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the AO. Thereafter the AO is directed to complete the assessment after considering the objections as well as the documents furnished by the assessee. We also direct the AO to grant a personal hearing to the assessee before passing the assessment order.