GABRIEL SAM THINAKARAN,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-4,, TIRUNELVELI

1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 26.08.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2016-17.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the appeal has been filed belatedly by ‘197’ days and in order to explain the delay, he drew our attention to the application filed for condoning the delay along with the affidavit supporting the averments made therein.

Having gone through the contents of the application for condonation of delay supported by medical documents, we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits.

The Ld.AR assailing the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua assessee only on the ground that the assessee didn’t respond to his three (3) notices, passed within ‘40’ days [27.06.2024 to 31.07.2024].

Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee since the assessee failed to appear/respond before both the authorities below.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the AO having noted that the assessee had deposited cash of ₹1,00,67,250/- in his bank account in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank had reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on 22.03.2021 and having found that the assessee didn’t file any RoI and also didn’t respond to his notices issued to his e-mail/Speed Post, the AO framed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act by making the addition u/s.69A of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO since the assessee didn’t respond to his three (3) notices. The assessee has brought to our notice that due to his illness/medical problems, he had to be hospitalized on several occasions and due to which he couldn’t get any access to his computer and therefore notices issued to his e-mail couldn’t be noticed by him which prevented the assessee from responding to notices issued by both the authorities below. Since the entire cash deposits have been added in the hands of the assessee, considering the medical reports of the assessee, we are inclined to give him one more opportunity by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. Ltd. (supra), and set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment subject to assessee remitting cost of Rs.10,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within three (3) months of receipt of this order; and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the AO and then, the AO to assess the income of the assessee afresh after hearing the assessee in accordance to law.

The Ld.AR has undertaken to appear and file the written submissions and other relevant documents to support the nature and source of cash deposits, which we expect the assessee to fulfill before the AO.

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