DAMODAR PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

Vide assessment order dated 16.03.2023, the Assessing Officer assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 82,00,000/-, by making addition of the equal amount by way of ”net short term capital gain”, as regards sale of immovable property on on 14.02.2018 i.e. during the year under consideration, to M/s Subash Homes Private Limited.

Arguments heard. File perused.

As noticed above, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed there on the ground that same was barred by limitation, there being delay of 110 days, as the appeal was filed on 03.08.2023 even though the impugned order was served on 15.04.2023.

Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the Authorized Representative of the assessee did not inform the assessee of the assessment order as well as notices. He has further submitted that the appellant came to know of this fact in the first week of July, 2023, when he applied for a loan and in that regard the bank officials informed that his ITR for the last 2-3 years had not been e-verified, and as such, same was Sh. Damodar Prasad Sharma vs. ITO invalid. As further submitted, It was thereupon that the assessee engaged some other counsel, and the said counsel informed the assessee about non filing of appeal against the assessment order and also the outstanding demand. Ld. AR for the appellant has thus contended that the appeal deserves to be heard on merits, but Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the same in limine, even though there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Ld. DR for the department has referred to the assessment order and pointed out that the appellant did not participate even in the assessment proceedings, despite several opportunities and issuance of notices, and as such, there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, Learned DR has urged that there is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant.

A perusal of Form 35 submitted before Learned CIT(A) would reveal that the assessee-appellant furnished therein address and e-mail address for the purpose of service of notices. The e-mail ID was dpsharma.nikhil01@gmail.com. In the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the appellant has not disputed of the above said email ID and issuance of notices and the impugned order from the office of Learned CIT(A).

In the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the appellant has not disputed issuance of the communications/notices/letters, as find mentioned in para 2 of the assessment order.

As regards the ground put forth for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before Learned CIT(A), the appellant has not placed on record any affidavit of the concerned AR. The assessee has also neither alleged that he moved any complaint against the said AR, who failed to inform him of the proceedings. Learned CIT(A) rightly observed that the appellant did not even name the said ld. AR who failed to discharge his duties. Learned Sh. Damodar Prasad Sharma vs. ITO CIT(A) was also justified in observing that it was the duty of the appellant to be diligent, even though he had authorized someone to represent him in the assessment proceedings.

However, taking into consideration the nature of the issues involved, we deem it a fit case to allow the request of AR for the appellant for restoration of the proceedings before Learned CIT(A) for effective adjudication of the matter on merits.

For the delay and non diligence on the part of the assessee-appellant in the filing the appeal there, we deem it a fit case to burden him with costs. Having regard to the non- diligence in filing of the appeal within prescribed period of limitation, we impose cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Cost to be deposited in “Prime Minister National Relief Funds”. Result 14. In view of the above findings, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and while deciding the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal before Learned CIT(A), we hereby restore the appeal to the files of Learned CIT(A) for decision on merits, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, and that too, in accordance with law.