LIMA LOUNDES MARIE,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-3,, PUDUCHERRY

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual.

1. The assessee did not file the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2016–17. Based on information that the assessee had made an investment of Rs. 98,68,000/- in immovable property, the Assessing Officer (AO) formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2023 after complying with the procedure prescribed u/s.148A of the Act. However, the assessee failed to comply with the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The assessee also did not respond to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. In these circumstances, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act on a best judgment basis and made an addition of Rs. 68,000/-.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal before him. The assessee sought condonation of delay on the ground that the delay occurred because the tax consultant was out of station in connection with professional assignments relating to bank audit. In our opinion, this constitutes a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay and the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to contest the appeal before the lower authorities with regard to the condonation of delay as well as on the merits of the case.