PALANISAMY ANAND,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual had filed his original return of income for the AY 2017-18, on 26.04.2017, admitting a total income of Rs.9,00,810/- from consulting charges received. As per the information available with the department found that assessee had purchased an immovable property to the tune of Rs.1,99,97,000/- during the A.Y.2017-18 and hence the case was reopened u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly statutory notices were issued to the assessee. However, assessee had not responded for any of the notices. Therefore, show-cause notices dated 23.07.2022 and 13.05.2023 were issued upon the assessee. However, as the assessee failed to comply to the aforesaid notices issued from time to time. The AO made an addition of Rs.1,99,97,000/- invested in immovable property and treated as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act and concluded the assessment by passing an exparte order u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act dated 30.05.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi.

At the outset, the ld.CIT(A) found that there is a delay of 140 days in appeal filed by the assessee on 16.11.2023 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee failed to file the condonation of delay petition with documentary evidence in support of his claim and explain with reasons for filing the appeal in delay during the appellate proceedings, in spite opportunity provided by the ld.CIT(A) as per para 1.2 of its order. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in liminie as not :-3-: ITA. No:1528/Chny/2025

The ld.AR submitted that the assessee has not received notices issued by the ld.CIT(A). Hence, the appeal was not prosecuted before the ld.CIT(A) and also the assessment order was passed an exparte u/s.144 of the Act by the AO. Therefore, ld.AR prayed for one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent his case before the AO in the interest of natural justice. Further, the ld.AR assured the bench that he will undertake to represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO, in case one more opportunity is provided.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee is negligent in responding to the notices of the department and filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 140 days and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard rival contentions and noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an exparte order by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal by 140 days before the first appellate proceedings. We note that the assessee had filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) belatedly due to health reasons. Hence, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee needs to be given one more opportunity to prosecute the appeal on merits.

In the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधि/DR 5. गार्ज फाईल/GF