T. SUKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(4), TAMBARAM

At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 171 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the assessee is a senior citizen and is not technologically savvy.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for AY 2013-14. Based on the information available with the department, the AO noticed that the assessee and his brother have transferred immovable property to the extent of 2.04 acres and 1 acre of vacant land to Shri S. Dhanasekharan and Smt. D.Sasirekha through a joint development agreement on behalf of M/s.Priadarshini Foundations Pvt. Ltd., for construction of residential complex. Further, the AO found that the approximate market value of the assessee’s share of 1 acre and 44 cents works out to Rs.3,76,35,340/- as per guideline value during the F.Y.2012-13. Hence, the case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act and further statutory notices were issued to the assessee and by calling for details. The assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices. Hence, the AO completed the reassessment by passing an ex-parte order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 24.03.2022 by making an addition of Rs.3,76,35,840/- as income from long term capital gain and arrived a total income of Rs.3,76,35,840/-.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 03.05.2022.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has issued various notices to the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 4.1 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent

The ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and had no knowledge of income tax proceedings, and hence he was not aware of the hearing notices issued by the AO as well as ld.CIT(A) and hence he could not attend the assessment and appellate proceedings. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of AO. 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 both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. 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 ex-parte order by considering the information available with the department and the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non- participation of the assessee. Since, the assessee has failed to participate before the AO as well as the first appellate authority, we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the assessee shall satisfy the payment of cost before the authorities.

In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and 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

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