NEETHU RADHAVARAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Succinctly stated, the A.O based on the information flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by CBDT that the assessee during the year under consideration was in receipt of income/carried out substantial

Thereafter, the A.O issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, and reminder letters, but the same were not complied with. Also, the show-cause notice (SCN) dated 20.11.2023, issued under section 144 of the Act by the AO, was not responded to by the assessee. The A.O, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, was constrained to proceed and vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act, dated 19.12.2023, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.17,11,190/- after making certain additions, viz. (i) addition of undisclosed income: Rs.6,02,165 (ii) addition of undisclosed income: Rs.1,23,932/- and (iii) addition of unexplained investment of Rs. 9,85,096/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT (A). However, as the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) involved a delay of 161 days, the latter did not find favor with the explanation furnished by the assessee, and dismissed the appeal.

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

I have heard the Ld. ARs of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

Per contra, the Ld. DR objected to the assessee- appellant's seeking condonation of delay in the appeal filed before the CIT(A). He submitted that it was a classic case wherein the assessee-appellant had consistently adopted a lackadaisical approach throughout the income tax proceedings. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee had neither filed her return of income nor complied with the notices issued in the course of the assessment proceedings, which, thus, had resulted in the framing of an ex parte assessment under section 144 of the Act, and the same had thereafter been followed with inordinate delay in filing the present appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. DR further submitted that as the assessee has failed to submit any reasonable cause for the delay, the Ld. CIT (A) had rightly declined to condone the same in exercise of the powers vested with him under section 249(3) of the Act.

I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the authorities below.

Admittedly, it is a matter of fact that the assessee has delayed in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by 161 days. Although in principle, I concur with the Ld. CIT (A) that the delay in filing of the appeal, which is not backed by any justifiable reason, does not merit being condoned, but the Ld. CIT (A), while considering an application filed by an assessee appellant seeking condonation of delay, ought to afford an opportunity to the appellant to substantiate her explanation regarding the reasons leading to the delay and should not summarily dismiss the same at the back of the assessee appellant. I am thus unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the summarily declining of the condonation of delay by the Ld. CIT (A) without putting the assessee appellant to notice, which thus had divested her of an opportunity to substantiate her explanation regarding the reasons leading to the delay based on supporting documentary evidence, if any. In my view, the matter, in all fairness and in the interest of justice, merits to be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) with a direction to afford an opportunity to the assessee to put forth an explanation regarding the delay in filing of the appeal before him. In case the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned by him, the Ld. CIT (A) shall proceed to decide the appeal qua the merits of the case based on which the impugned order of assessment has been assailed before him.

However, as the assessee has adopted a casual approach in responding to the notices of the authorities below,

Before parting, I may clarify that I have only set aside the matter to the Ld. CIT (A) for affording an opportunity to the assessee to put forth an explanation before him regarding the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the appeal and had nowhere expressed any view regarding her explanation, which the first appellate authority will remain at liberty to look into in the course of the set aside proceedings.

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