SUBHASH HANUMANTHAPPA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

Facts

The assessee, proprietor of M/s. Sri Baidyanath Book Distributors, filed an ITR for AY 2017-18. After no response to notices u/s 142(1), the AO made a best judgment assessment u/s 144, adding Rs. 50,96,500 for demonetization period deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, stating a 60-day delay without a condonation petition, despite the assessee claiming the assessment order was served much later via a u/s 226(3) notice.

Held

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for delay without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the claimed delay, particularly regarding the disputed date of service of the assessment order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to reconsider the delay issue after providing the assessee a proper hearing.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for delay without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay, especially regarding the disputed date of service of the assessment order.