KANNANKULAM POULOSE JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THRISSUR

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual. No regular return of income for the AY 2017-18 was filed by the assessee. Based on the information that the assessee made cash Kannankulam Poulose Johny deposits in specified bank notes (SBNs) during demonetization period of Rs.5,00,000/- with Federal Bank, Pattikad Branch, the ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur (for short, 'AO') issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 26/02/2018. The assessee neither complied with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) nor letter issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act. In these circumstnnances, the AO was constrained to pass the best judgment assessment and made addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- by observing that assessee made cash deposits in SBNs during demonitization period.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal with a delay of 359 days.

At the outset, I find that the present is filed with a delay 359 days. The assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that assessee was not aware about the order passed by the NFAC u/s. 250 on 26/03/2024. The assessee came to know the passing of the order only on receiving show-cause notice for levy of penalty and immediately appeal was filed on 19/05/2025 with delay Kannankulam Poulose Johny of 359 days. On careful perusal of the averments made in the affidavit, it is evident that the assessee was not aware of the order passed by the NFAC u/s. 250 till receipt of the penalty notice. Since only ignorance of the order, I am of the considered opinion that for the purpose of limitation period for filing the appeal, the date on which assessee was came to know the order passed by the NFAC should be reckoned. Accordingly, if it is treated that when the date of knowledge, the order is received by the assessee, passed by the order of the NFAC, there is no delay in filing of the present appeal. Accordingly, there is no delay.