MR. BAJARANGAPRASAD SAMBHUPRASAD PATWA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

The Ld.AR appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a small time craftsman doing handwork on garments. Further, he is also illiterate. Since the business of doing handwork on garments has become outdated, he is not having much income also. Further, he does not have any knowledge about income tax. The AO has reopened the assessment of the year under consideration on the basis of information that the assessee had sold a property. However, in the best judgement assessment, the AO assessed the entire sale consideration as Short Term Capital Gain in the absence of relevant details. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has not sold any property as observed by the AO. Hence, the assessment of Short Term Capital Gain was not justified. Besides the above, the AO also assessed the receipt of Rs. 9,14,666/- as business income of the assessee, which is also not correct. Though the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), he could not appear before him as he was not aware of the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). Further, the assessee was not advised to file condonation petition at the time of hearing. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Since the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was served to the email ID of the tax consultant, the assessee was not aware of the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Further, the tax consultant is an asthmatic patient and he was not tech savvy. Hence he could not have access to the notices sent by email. The Ld.AR also submitted that the appeal filed before ITAT is also belated by around 1000 days. All these reasons cited above have cumulatively contributed to the delay in filing the appeal belatedly before the ITAT. Accordingly, the Ld.AR submitted that considering the position of the assessee, the Bench may take a lenient view in condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT.