SYED KHADER HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Page 1 of 8 1. Under the fact and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC erred in not condoning the delay of 350 days in filing the appeal. 2. The Learned C.I.T(A)/NFAC failed to note that the Appellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. 3. The Appellant craves to add, modify or amend the above grounds anytime during the course of appeal.”

At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine, as barred by limitation. He has pointed out that the assessee was working as a Line Inspector with the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company and retired on 31/12/2016 from services. The assessee is not a well educated person and therefore, is not well versed with the procedures and proceedings pending before the learned CIT (A). He has filed the affidavit of the assessee to explain the delay of 11 months and 5 months in filing the respective appeals before the learned CIT (A) against the assessment order as well as the penalty order passed u/s 270A of the Act. Since the assessee was Page 2 of 8 not aware about the procedure and was dependent on the Tax Consultant regarding the proceedings initiated u/s 148 of the Act, the notices were issued by the Tax Authorities on the email ID used by the Tax Consultant for filing the return of income and therefore, the assessee being not convergent with the technologies and use of computer was not aware about the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT (A). Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the assessee was under bonafide belief that, after filing the return, no further steps or compliance was required. Due to lack of knowledge and old age, the assessee was not aware about the order passed by the Assessing Officer and therefore, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned AR has thus, pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) may be condoned.

On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that, it is a case of complete gross negligence on the part of the assessee who has neither participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer nor filed the appeal in time before the learned CIT (A).

We have considered the rival submission and gone through the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee. The reason for delay in filing the appeals have been explained in in para 8 to 14 of the affidavit as under:

Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the Assessing Officer has passed the ex-parte order and the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, we incline to condone the delay of 11 months and 5 months in filing the appeals before the learned CIT (A) arising from the assessment order as well as the penalty order passed u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961 subject to cost of Rs.2500/- for each appeal to be paid to the Prime Ministers’ National Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of this order.

The learned AR of the assessee has pleaded that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on account of unexplained deposits in the Bank Account, whereas the assessee was having only the salary income and retirement benefit funds as source of the deposits in the Bank Account. However, since the Page 5 of 8 assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings, the relevant details and record could not be filed before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after proper verification and examination of the relevant record to be filed by the assessee.

On the other hand, the learned DR has raised no objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification and examination of the relevant records.

Having considered the rival submission as well as perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we find that the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.49,75,438/- in para 7 as under:

From the above, it is clear that the Assessing Officer was having the information that the amount in question was received by the assessee from the Telangana Southern Power

Since the matter in quantum appeal has been set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer, therefore, the order of the learned CIT (A) arising from the penalty levied u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is also set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for taking necessary steps, if need arises as per the outcome of the set aside proceedings in quantum/assessment.