KATARI GOVINDARAJU,ANAKAPALLE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANAKAPALLE

The grounds of appeal raised in Form No. 36 are as follows -

Brief facts emerging from records are that in absence of any return on record and information contained AIMS ( ITBA ) portal regarding cash deposits by the assessee in bank account and existence of financial transactions in bank , the AO initiated proceedings vide notice u/s 148 after necessary approval from higher authorities ( as per procedure ) and in absence of any repose to subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1) , the assessment has been completed exparte on a total income of Rs.77.15 lakhs ( including cash deposits of Rs.65.39 lakhs made in FY 2015-16 as per observation in page 5 of assessment order ) .

The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed by the Ld CIT ( A ) refusing to admit the appeal for adjudication u/s 249(3) of the Act , on account of delay of 1113 ( one thousand one hundred thirteen days ) in filing the same, not being satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons explaining delay contained in Form No.35.

Now the assessee is before the tribunal on the following grounds contained in Form No. 36 and the main grievance is against the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld CIT ( A ) refusing to condone the delay considering medical reasons of the assessee undergoing a bye-pass surgery.

In course of hearing the Ld AR of the assessee , submitted that the assessee after his bye-pass surgery has been continuously suffering and is under medical treatment and his business has also suffered because of his illness. In support of his contention he has produced a bunch of medical papers , prescriptions and documents and prayed for an opportunity of hearing to explain his case , and also pointed out to the adverse orders passed by the AO where the cash deposits for FY 2015-16 in bank has been considered as part of assessed income for the year under appeal.

The Ld DR relied on the order of the Ld CIT ( A ) .

We have considered the rival submissions and the medical papers produced before us and we are of the opinion that medical illness of the assessee cannot be denied and heart surgery does have an adverse effect on every individual. Moreover, this appeal has not been adjudicated on merits because of the inordinate delay in filing the same. We are also of the opinion considering the medical issues put forth , that interest of justice would be best served if the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits, and as such we condone the delay in filing the same before the Ld First Appellate Authority, and remand the matter back to the Ld CIT ( A ) for admitting the same and for adjudication on the grounds contained in Form No.35 on merits of the case.

We are also of the opinion that in spite of his illness, neglect on the part of the assessee cannot be overlooked and as such we deem it fit and proper to impose a token cost of Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees ten thousand ) on the assessee , payable to the credit of “Prime Ministers National Relief Fund” within thirty days of communication of this order ( evidence to be produced before JAO ).

The assessee will be allowed proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard and notice to be issued in e-mail ID in the portal and also in e-mail mentioned in Form No.35 and the assessee is also directed to file necessary documentary evidences and submissions before the Ld First Appellate Authority and to fully cooperate in appeal proceedings.

We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all legal issues are left open .

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.