RAVINDER RAO TAKKALLAPELLY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the reassessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under Section 147 r.w.s.

Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the delay occurred due to non-receipt of the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO. It was explained that the assessment order was not served on the regular email ID used by the assessee, but was instead sent to a different email ID, which was inactive and not monitored by the assessee. As a result, the assessee became aware of the assessment order only upon receipt of the demand notice from the Revenue authorities at a later stage, by which time the limitation period for filing the appeal had expired. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay was not intentional and requested for condonation of the same.

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the request for remand. He submitted that the assessee had participated in the reassessment proceedings and had complied with certain notices issued by the Ld. AO. Therefore, the assessee was well aware of the reassessment proceedings, and the explanation that the assessee did not know about the final assessment order is not acceptable. The Ld. DR also referred to paragraph 2.5 of the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), wherein it was clearly recorded that the assessee did not submit any formal petition or affidavit supported by documentary evidence explaining the specific reasons for the delay. The Ld. DR further submitted that adequate opportunity had already been provided by the Ld. CIT(A), which the assessee failed to utilize.

We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. On perusal of paragraph 2.5 of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), we note that the CIT(A) has clearly stated that the assessee did not file any formal condonation petition or affidavit supported by evidence explaining the cause of delay. We further observe that even before us, the assessee has not filed any petition for condonation of delay or any affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay of 563 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the explanation regarding wrong service of the assessment order on an inactive email ID remains unsubstantiated on record. However, considering the principles of natural justice and in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to file a formal condonation petition supported by an affidavit and relevant documentary evidence explaining the delay before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the petition for condonation of delay on merits and pass a speaking order thereon. In case the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(A) may proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings and not to seek unnecessary adjournments, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.