KANDASAMY GOVINDARAJ,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, WARD-1, DHARMAPURI

These appeals by the assessee are filed against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the same assessment year 2012-13, dated 05.12.2023 and 19.07.2024 respectively.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 341 days in appeal filed by the assessee in 127 days in appeal filed by the assessee in for which the assessee has filed separate affidavits stating the same reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted that the assessee is uneducated and has not been communicated about the notices sent during the assessment proceedings because of the internal family disputes. Hence, there was a delay in filing the appeals by the assessee. After considering the Affidavits filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual had not filed his return of income though he had deposited cash to the tune of Rs.50,17,691/- to his bank accounts. The case was reopened for assessment and AO had issued statutory notices. However, the assessee failed to respond

Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

The ld.CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed appeal as not admitted u/s.249(4)(b) stating that the assessee had not made the payment of applicable advance tax. Further, the ld.CIT(A) has also stated that the assessee has not made any application as per the proviso to section 249(4) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A) the assessee is before us.

At the outset we find that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the quantum appeal filed by the assessee without admitting appeal as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act. In our considered view the question of payment of advance tax as provided in section 249(4)(b) of the Act does not arise in the reopened cases, where entire addition has been questioned in appeal by the assessee before the appellate authorities. Our above view has been affirmed by this Tribunal in the case Perumalpillai Sreenivasan Vs. ITO, in dated 18.03.2025. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without admitting and hence we are inclined to remit back to the issue to the files of the ld.CIT(A) by directing to adjudicate the issue on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

Since, the quantum appeal has been set aside to the files of the ld.CIT(A) to decide on merits, the penalty appeal filed by the assessee in which is consequential to the outcome of the quantum appeal. Hence, we are setting aside this appeal also to the files of the ld.CIT(A) to decide on merits in accordance to law along with the quantum appeal.

In the result both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.