NITESH DEVENDRA MEHTA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. referring to the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, dated 11.03.2010, submitted that although the assessee claims to have been served on 18.03.2010, the assessee has not received the intimation up to the date when the CPC communicated the intimation in response to the letter dated 11.03.2014. Therefore, if we consider the receipt of intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act on 11.03.2014 and 4 Nitesh Devendra Mehta filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 20.11.2014, there was no delay, therefore the Ld. CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal in limine for not explaining the delay of 5,336 days. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that on merits, the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of Prashant, the assessee's brother, where under identical appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the appeal, therefore the matter be remitted to the file of the A.O. to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Ms. B K. Vishnu Priya, on the other hand, regarding the screenshot of payment from the ITBA portal shows that, submitted that, as per the information dated 11.03.2021, has been served on the assessee on 18.03.2010. The claim of the assessee that the information was not served on the assessee is not proved with any other evidence, since there is clear evidence of service of intimation on 18.03.2010. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal in limine for not explaining the delay. Therefore, she submitted that, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld.

We have heard both parties, perused the material on record, and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the A.O., CPC processed the return of income filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 on 11.03.2010, which 5 Nitesh Devendra Mehta is evident from the relevant screenshot taken from the ITBA portal. The only dispute is with regard to the communication of intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee claims that the intimation issued by the A.O. under Section 143(1) of the Act was not served on the assessee up to 11.11.2024. It was the argument of the Revenue that as per the screenshot of the ITBA portal, the intimation was served on the assessee on 11.03.2010, and except the screenshot from the ITBA portal, the Revenue could not file any further evidence to prove effective service of intimation to the assessee either through e-mail or in physical form through postal. In the absence of any evidence as to proof of service of intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, as claimed by the Revenue on 18.03.2010, in our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the argument of the assessee that he had received the intimation in response to the letter on 11.11.2024. However, the fact remains that the assessee did not file any petition for admission of appeal explaining the above reasons to the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee has explained the reasons that there was no delay, if we consider the date of receipt of intimation on 11.11.2024, and further, this explanation was not before the Ld. CIT(A), in our considered view, the matter needs to be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the explanation of the assessee. Thus, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal 6 Nitesh Devendra Mehta back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the petition filed by the assessee for explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

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