HARSHAJEET KUROOP VANTHANKANDY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, -6(3)(4), MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Year: 2011-12
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31.01.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12. Shri Harshajeet Kuroop Vanthankandy
2
2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer vide order dated
16.12.2018 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, made the additions of Rs.17,27,397/- & Rs.4,828/- respectively on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act and undisclosed interest income on saving bank account.
The Assessee, being aggrieved against the assessment order dated 16.12.2018 and the aforesaid additions, challenged the same before the Ld. Commissioner by filling first appeal however, with a delay of 68 days.
The Ld. Commissioner initially issued a notice for hearing on dated 20.02.2020 and thereafter in between Covid-19 on 03.03.2020 & 08.01.2021 and thereafter on 17.07.2023 and 27.07.2023 i.e. after two and a half years from the last date of fixing the case on 08.01.2021, fixed the hearing of the appeal and thereafter on three occasions in August and September 2023. However, the Assessee still made no submissions and therefore the Ld. Commissioner in the constrained circumstances and considering the assessment order, decided the appeal of the Assessee and ultimately dismissed the same on the point of limitation/delay by holding that the Assessee has not submitted any evidence in support of late service of assessment order and failed to establish sufficient and reasonable cause explaining the delay. The Ld. Commissioner consequently, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine on the point of limitation.
5
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the impugned order before this Tribunal.
Shri Harshajeet Kuroop Vanthankandy
3
6. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record on the point of limitation. At the outset, it is observed that this appeal is also time barred by 187 days, on which the Assessee has claimed as under:
“1. That I am the assessee, in the above-mentioned case, and I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was passed on 31 Jan 2024, and the said order was communicated to me via email on January 31, 2024. 3. That due to unforeseen circumstances, the email containing the CIT(A) order was delivered to the junk/spam folder of my email account, and I did not notice it at the time.
That due to the email being in the junk folder, I inadvertently missed reviewing the CIT(A) order in a timely manner.
That upon discovering the order in my email's junk folder in July 2024, I immediately took steps to rectify the oversight and prepare for the appeal.
That the delay in filing the appeal with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is willful nor deliberate but due to the genuine oversight as mentioned above. is neither
That I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to accept my appeal for hearing, as the matter involves significant tax implications and merits consideration.
That the delay in filing the appeal is not due to any negligence or disregard for the process but is solely due to the above-stated reasons which were beyond my control.”
On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee qua condonation of delay.
This Court has given thoughtful considerations to the reasons stated by the Assessee for condonation of delay inter-alia that the Shri Harshajeet Kuroop Vanthankandy
4
impugned order was communicated to the Assessee via email on 31.01.2024, however, due to unforeseen circumstances the email containing the impugned order was delivered to the junk/spam folder of the Assessee’s email and therefore the Assessee did not notice the same and inadvertently missed noticing the order in timely manner. However, on discovering the impugned order in the email’s junk folder in July 2024, the Assessee immediately took steps to rectify the oversight and filed the instant appeal. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the genuine oversight as mentioned above. Considering the reasons for delay as bonafide and un-intentional and sufficient, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in filing of the instant appeal and thus, the delay is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, as the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner has failed to provide sufficient cause/explanation for the delay of 60 days in filing of the first appeal and in spite of sending various notices the Assessee made no compliance, which resulted into non-adjudication of the issue involved on merit and therefore for the just and proper decision of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh , however, subject to deposit of Rs.1100 in the Revenue Department under “other heads” but within 15 days from the receipt of this order. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner and to file the relevant documents which would be essentially required for proper decision of the case. In case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Shri Harshajeet Kuroop Vanthankandy
5
10. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld.
Commissioner for decision afresh.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.01.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.