Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee against an order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal ex-parte for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee had failed to respond to notices from the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to bonafide reasons. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to respond, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
147, 139(1), 148, 143(2), 142(1), 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
Year: 2018-19 Jothimuthumariappan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 321b, Main Road, Ward 1, Vickramasingapuram, Tirunelveli S.O., Tirunelveli. Tamil Nadu 627 425. [PAN:BCFPJ0723H] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate, : Shri Sathish Kumar, Advocate & Shri Kumar Subramanian, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.
2. The only effective ground raised by the assessee is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) justified in dismissing the appeal exparte the assessee without considering the issues on merits in the facts and circumstances of the case.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 363 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
We note that the Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for AY 2018-19 on the basis of information that the assessee made cash deposits of ₹.93,63,000/- in the bank account and earned interest income of ₹.29,439/- and the assessee did not file return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated 05.04.2022 against which the assessee filed the return of income on 28.05.2022 admitting income of ₹.2,95,920/-. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices under sections 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act and show cause notices, however, the assessee did not respond to notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits of ₹.93,63,000/- and added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. AR Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate submits that non appearance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer is neither wilful nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond his control. He also submits that the notices sent through email were completely missed out as the assessee is not conversant with the e- proceedings and electronic devises. Thus, he prayed that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee to pursue his case before the Assessing Officer.
The ld. DR Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to page 2 of the assessment order as well as para 4 of the impugned order and argues that the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) afforded ample opportunities to the assessee, but, it was not availed. He vehemently argued that costs may be imposed in case this Tribunal afford an opportunity by remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We note that the assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 26.09.2023. On perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer as well as hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). We also note that the Assessing Officer issued the show-cause notices dated 04.09.2023 and 13.09.2023 requiring the assessee to furnish documentary evidence for cash deposits. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer subject to the condition of payment of ₹.50,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the Assessing Officer shall satisfy the payment of cost and decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 05th March, 2025 at Chennai.