RAMASUBRAMANIAN SABAPATHY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), BENGALURU

This appeal is filed with a delay of 39 days and also filed an application to condone the said delay. In the said application, the assessee submitted that he is an IT professional and has no knowledge about the income tax proceedings and therefore depended on a tax consultant. But the said tax consultant could not follow up the matter with the authorities and therefore the assessee had changed the said consultant and entrusted the appeal to be filed before this Tribunal to a new consultant and therefore the said delay of 39 days has occurred.

We have considered the said reasons and also considered the said delay as they are minimal one and therefore condone the said delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.

At the outset, we have also found that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is also not on merits but only decided based on the limitation. Similarly, the assessment was also made u/s. 144 of the Act. The assessee filed an affidavit before this Tribunal in support of the facts and submitted that the notices issued by the AO was not received by him and submitted that the said notices might have gone to the spam folder of the assessee’s email ID which got automatically deleted after the expiry of 30 days and therefore the assessee has no knowledge about the proceedings initiated by the AO and also the order passed u/s. 147 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee submitted that the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 351 days and also filed an application to condone the said delay. In the said application, the assessee submitted about his personal loss which affects his physical and mental health and therefore the assessee was not able to concentrate on the income tax proceedings and also unable to get proper advice for the assessment as well as for filing the appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the said reasons as sufficient cause and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.