SANTHAKUMAR MEDUR ELUMALAI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income in PAN AQNPS7640H. Based on the information that the assessee had purchased an immovable property with the PAN AOQPS5986R, the AO had alleged that the assessee had not filed his return of income in the said PAN and on that basis, proceedings u/s. 148A(b) was initiated. The assessee had not responded to the said notice and therefore, the order u/s. 148A(d) was made and a notice u/s. 148 was issued. The AO had also issued a communication through the speed post for which also the assessee had not responded. Therefore, the AO had proposed to treat the said investment as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Even to the said notice, the assessee had not responded and therefore the AO had confirmed the said addition u/s. 69 of the Act.

As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 123 days. The assessee filed an application to condone the said delay and explained the reasons for the said delay. The Ld.CIT(A) had not condoned the said delay as there was no sufficient cause shown by the assessee.

As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is mainly receiving the salary income and along with his wife, the property has been purchased. The Ld.AR also submitted that the difficulties experienced by the assessee and the reasons for not responding to the various notices issued by the AO and also explained that the assessee is now employed in UK and in view of the said assignment, he was not able to verify the mails. The Ld.AR further submitted that before the new assignment, the family members of the assessee suffered ill health and therefore, the assessee was not able to give proper reply to the AO as well as the delay has been happened and prayed that an opportunity may be granted. The Ld.AR also filed an affidavit verifying the application for condonation of delay before the Ld.CIT(A).

The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee is not co-operative with the department and therefore, he deserves no leniency and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

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

We have perused the affidavit filed by the assessee in which the assessee had explained the various problems faced by him including the health issues of his mother-in-law, father and mother and also about the new assignment at UK and explained that in view of the above said facts, the assessee had not viewed the e-mail and therefore, only after settling in UK, he viewed the e-mail and at that time only, he came to know about the ex-parte assessment order made by the AO. Therefore, the assessee further submitted that he is having a salary income and also obtained a bank loan for purchasing the said property along with his wife and if the said details are furnished to the AO, the entire addition would go.

Considering the said facts and also the reasons stated by the assessee for the above said delay of 123 days before the Ld.CIT(A), we are inclined to condone the said delay of 123 days. The assessment was made u/s. 144 of the Act and therefore, the AO has no occasion to consider the documents relied on by the assessee. In such circumstances, we are setting aside the orders of the authorities and remit the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication and in accordance with law.

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