AMRUTHA VIVIDHODEESHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGA NIYAMITHA,MOLAKALMUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITRADURGA

At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 111 days in filing of instant appeal, on which the Assessee by filing duly sworn affidavit has claimed that his chartered accountant’s wife was diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing prolonged and intensive medical treatment and therefore the Ld. CA was fully engaged in his M/s. Amrutha Vividhoddesha Souharda Sahakari Sanga Niyamitha wife’s care and could not attend to his professional responsibilities including monitoring, communications and responding to the final notices. Unfortunately, his wife passed away on 26.06.2024 and the emotional distress and responsibilities following his wife’s demise the chartered accountant’s abilities were affected to resume work in a timely manner. Admittedly, the notices were received on behalf of the Assessee, in his official email ID i.e. Ravindra_162066@yahoo.co.in, however, due to the personal situation, he was unable to access or act upon those communications, which resulted into not responding to the notices. The Assessee in support of condonation of delay has also filed duly sworn affidavit of Mr. Krishnaiahsetty Indraiah Setty Ravindhranath Ld. C.A., who has deposed/claimed as under:

The Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee qua condonation of delay but not the contents of the affidavit filed by the Ld. CA Mr. Krishnaiahsetty Indraiah Setty Ravindhranath.

Thus, considering the reasons stated for condonation of delay which prima facie are genuine, bonafide and unintentional and therefore for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to condone the delay. Thus, the delay is condoned.

Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that in this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated M/s. Amrutha Vividhoddesha Souharda Sahakari Sanga Niyamitha 21.12.2022 u/s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act has made the addition of Rs.22,62,330/- being income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, except seeking adjournments eventually made no compliance and/or filed no submissions and documents and therefore Ld. Commissioner, in the constrained circumstances, as the Assessee failed to submit any substantial evidence to overturn the decision made by the AO as observed by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order, ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Assessee for non-prosecution but not on merits of the case. Thus, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, for just and proper decision of the case, equitable relief, fair play and substantial justice, as the Assessee remained absent due to health issues of his CA’s wife, who was diagnosed with cancer and undergoing prolonged and intensive medical treatment and ultimately died, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions and documents as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case.

Thus the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly.