(LATE) KISHORE KUMAR BAGMAR REP. BY L/H RAJENDRA KUMAR BAGMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-4(1), CHENNAI

Since issues raised in both the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to ITA Nos.308 & 309/Chny/2025

In both the appeals, assessee raised 6 common grounds of appeal, amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in passing exparte order without condoning the delay in filing both the appeals.

The assessee is an individual filed is return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 on 18.03.2010 declaring the income of Rs.9,58,430/-. However, the assessee had not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2011- 12. The assessee came to know that the CPC is adjusting the refunds claimed in the subsequent returns of income filed has been adjusted towards the liability of taxes raised for the A.Y.2009-10 & 2011-12 on account of 143(1) intimation (as per ITBA Portal the intimation u/s.143(1) dated 24.02.2011 for A.Y.2009-10 and 31.03.2013 for the A.Y.2011-12). However, it is noticed that the assessee has never received intimation for both the assessment years and is not aware of the reasons for additions made in the intimation. Further, the assessee filed letters by way of e- mails to the CPC as well as JAO for providing the copies of intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act. The assessee also raised grievance for non

Aggrieved by the above demands shown in the income tax e- portal on account of intimation u/s.143(1) for the A.Y.2009-10 & 2011-12 the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC with the delay of 4200 days and 4500 days respectively. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee in limine by stating that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the huge delay of 4200 and 4500 days respectively for the A.Y.2009-10 & 2011-12. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A) the assessee preferred the appeals before us. The ld.AR for the assessee stated that the intimations passed u/s.143(1) was never communicated to the assessee for both the assessment years. Further, the department has not acted upon our request for providing copy of intimation to enable us to understand nature of additions or disallowances made in the said intimation for both the assessment years. The assessee failed to succeed in getting the same by raising grievances. Therefore, the assessee filed the appeals before the ld.CIT(A) on becoming aware of the demand through ITBA Portal and hence prayed for quashing the demand raised u/s.143(1) of the Act.

We have heard rival contentions perused the material available on record and gone through the order of the ld.CIT(A). Admittedly, the department has not furnished the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act for both the assessment years 2009-10 & 2011-12 even after request made by the assessee. The grievances raised by the assessee have also not been attended to by the department till today. Therefore, if the assessee’s grievance for non receipt of intimation orders for both the assessment years are correct (which has not been rebutted by the ld. DR), we find that there is no delay in filing of appeals before the ld. CIT(A), i.e., 4200 days and 4500 days for AY 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. We note that neither the assessee nor the department is aware of the nature of additions or disallowances made while processing the return u/s.143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the demand raised in the ITBA Portal of the department is not supported by any of the orders and hence we deem it fit to remit the file to the AO by setting aside the order of ld.CIT(A) for both the assessment years. We direct the AO to provide the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act for both the assessment years to the assessee and ITA Nos.308 & 309/Chny/2025

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st March 2025 at Chennai. (जॉजŊ जॉजŊ के) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाȯƗ /VICE PRESIDENT (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेɄई/Chennai,