Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao
Asst.Year 2017-2018 Sri.Kadavath Ahmed Reyas The Income Tax Officer 1-403, Kadavath House v. Ward 1 & TPS Thekkil Ferry PO Kasargod. Kasargod Bevinje Kasargod – 671 545. PAN : AJOPA8179K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Padmanathan K.V., Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Date of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre / Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter “the CIT(A)”] dated 28.11.2023 for the assessment year 2017-2018.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, engaged in cultivation of arecanut, coconut, rubber and pepper, in Kasargod, under the name and style of M/s.Kadavath Traders. The return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 was filed on 06.11.2017 disclosing income of Rs.2,97,660 and agricultural income of Rs.52,00,000. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Kasargod (hereinafter “the AO”) vide order dated 10.12.2019, passed u/s.143(3)
. Sri.Kadavath Ahmed Reyas. of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) at a total income of Rs.43,47,660 and agricultural income of Rs.11,50,000. While doing so, the AO disbelieved the deriving of agricultural income from cultivation of ginger, since the appellant had failed to show the evidence regarding the agricultural activities carried on at Chattisgarh. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs.40,50,000, however, accepted the agricultural income from the land holding held at Kasargod at Rs.11,50,000.
Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal.
The learned Senior DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
I heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, there is a delay of 433 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the order passed by the CIT(A) was served through ITBA Portal and email id of the Chartered Accountant, which was not in use since 2022. The appellant had come to the knowledge of this order only when the penalty order dated 24th March, 2025 passed u/s.270A of the Act, was served on him, and immediately thereafter the appellant entrusted the file to an Advocate, who filed this appeal on 04.04.2025 itself.
On a careful perusal of the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay. The explanation that in Form 35 the email id for the correspondence is given as auditors.skrl@gmail.com, which belongs to the firm of the Chartered Accountants to file the appeal. It was further submitted that the email id subsequently changed to auditors.pkd@gmail.com in the year 2022 and the firm of Chartered Accountants have failed to check the email id and the old email id, and the appellant became aware of the order passed by the CIT(A) only on 24th March, 2025, after the receipt of the penalty order passed u/s.270A of the Act. In the absence of any material to show that the averments made in the affidavit are false, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, I condone the delay of 433 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.
On the merits of the case, on a careful perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. It is also revealed from the order of the CIT(A) that the notice is served through ITBA portal, which is not a valid method of service of notice, as held by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to the provisions of sec.282(1) of the Act, held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to the file of AO for de novo disposal of the appeal.
. Sri.Kadavath Ahmed Reyas. 9. Therefore, the order passed by the CIT(A) is violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, I remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, in accordance with law, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 08th day of May, 2025.