KIRAN KUMAR SOMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, SURYAPET

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation petition and submitted that the reasons furnished by the assessee do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the condonation petition, affidavit, and the personal information furnished in Form No. 35. On perusal of the same, we find that the assessee had explicitly denied consent for communication through email and had clearly mentioned the address at which notices were required to be served. In spite of this, the notices were issued through email and not served at the address provided by the assessee. In our considered view, this lapse prevented the assessee from effectively participating in the appellate proceedings and from knowing about the passing of the order by the Ld. CIT(A) within time. We are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. Keeping in view the settled principle that procedural delays should not come in the way of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 294 days. Accordingly, the delay of 294 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication on merits.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned CIT (A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing proper opportunity to the appellant therein. 3) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining the total income at Rs.7,05,16,000/-. 4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the actual amount incurred by the appellant in acquisition of the property was only Rs.2 crores because of various defects in Page 3 of 6

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. A.O”) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 27.12.2016 for the relevant assessment year. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that, as explained in the condonation petition, despite specific denial by the assessee for service of notices through email, the Ld. CIT(A) issued all notices only through email. As a result, the assessee could not effectively participate in the appellate proceedings and could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). It was contended that the appellate order was thus passed without granting proper opportunity of being heard, resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR therefore prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to prosecute the appeal on merits.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that adequate opportunity was already granted by the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, no further opportunity is warranted.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As discussed above, while adjudicating the condonation petition, we have already recorded a finding that the assessee had specifically denied consent for communication through email, and despite the same, notices were issued only through email. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the assessee was deprived of an effective opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). It is a settled legal position that appellate proceedings should be conducted in conformity with the principles of natural justice, and an assessee should be afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to file all submissions and evidence in support of his claims. We further direct the assessee to cooperate in the remand proceedings and to avoid unnecessary adjournments.

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