NAIPPALLI CHIRAYIL CHANDY JOSEPH,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO WARD 2 , ALAPPUZHA

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular income for AY 2015-16 was filed by the appellant. Based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in bank account during the previous year relevant to AY 2015-16, AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued on 07.04.2022 after complying with the procedures Naippalli Chirayil Chandy Joseph prescribed u/s. 148A of the Act. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the appellant had not filed return of income. In the circumstances the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] (hereinafter called "the AO") completed the assessment vide order dated 15.01.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at total income of Rs. 34,68,406/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of cash deposits in the bank account aggregating to Rs. 34,47,051/- as unexplained money of the appellant. The AO also made addition of interest income of Rs. 21,355/-.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 114 days. The CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay and dismissed in limine on the grounds of delay.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the CIT(A), grossly erred in dismissing the appeal in limine even though there was sufficient reason for non-filing of the appeal within the prescribed period. It is submitted that the appellant was bed ridden with paralytic stroke and all the income tax matters were entrusted to the Tax Practitioner and he was under the impression that the Income Tax Practitioner had taken necessary action. However, the appellant had come to know of the assessment order only when the Departmental officials visited his home to serve penalty notice. It is

On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR opposed the above submissions.

I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue that arises for my consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 114 days in filing the appeal before him. The appellant had filed explanation seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant was bed ridden with paralytic stroke and he was under the bona fide belief that the Income Tax Practitioner, to whom the matters were entrusted had taken care of the matter. However, later on, he realised that the Income Tax Practitioner had neither attended the notices issued by the Department nor taken remedial action against assessment order in order to initiate steps for filing appeal against the assessment order. Immediately he consulted another Tax Consultant and filed the appeal with delay of 114 days. I am of the considered opinion that in the absence of any evidence contrary to the averments made in the condonation petition before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the matter on merits. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay of 114 days and adjudicate the issue in the appeal on merits.