DINESHCHANDRA RAMDAS PATIL,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred and was not just and proper in passing the Assessment Order under the provision of Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as all the notices were issued on wrong Mail ID and no manual notices.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) belatedly for almost 2298 days, for which the assessee has given the explanation in column 15 of the Form 35 filed before the CIT(A) as well as the statement of facts column 11. The assessee submitted that earlier the assessee has filed the appeal against the said assessment order in wrong assessment year being A.Y. 2017-18 and thereafter the assessee filed the appeal once again in correct assessment year. The assessee submitted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte order and the assessee was not aware of the assessment proceedings as well as the assessment order. The email ID on the notices was ranag3687@gmail.com and this email ID was one of assessee’s tax consultant, when the assessee filed assessee’s return of income for the AY 2016-17. Before and after this, returns were filed with another tax consultants. The assessee started using his own email ID in the Return of Income i.e. dnshp2@gmail.com since 2024-25. Since there is a discrepancy and mistake of the office of the tax consultant, the assessment was wrongly mentioned as A.Y. 2017-18 in place of 2011-12 while filing the first appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal filed for wrong A.Y. 2017-18 was filed belatedly filed by 457 days. Later when the said mistake was pointed out, a new appeal in Form 35 was filed on 26.03.2025 with correct assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2011-12. Despite explaining this delay, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay.

The Ld. Authoritised Representative (in short “the Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that the assessee explained all the details of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) but the CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits of the case. Since the AO also passed ex-parte order the Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the AO.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee could not appear before the AO due to the discrepancies of the email ID wherein the notices were issued by the AO and the assessee was not aware about the assessment proceedings. Thus, the assessment was ex-parte passed u/s 144 of the Act. Besides this, due to the mistake of tax consultant the assessee’s appeal belatedly filed in A.Y. 2017-18 instead of 2011-12 and at that juncture the delay of 2298 days which appears not properly taken into account by the CIT(A), the assessee’s difficulty which was due to the mistake of tax consultant. For the mistake of tax consultant, the assessee cannot suffer. Thus, we are remanding the matter back to the file of the AO for proper verification of the details and adjudicate the matter as per Income Tax Act. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. The assessee is also directed that the assessee will fully cooperate at the time of hearing.

In result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.