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.Sebastian Thomas Kanichai The Income Tax Officer 01, Kanichai House v. Ward 1 (1) Palayamparambu P.O. Thrissur. Vynthala Thrissur – 680 741. PAN : BTFPK7648F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms.Nivedita A.Kamath, 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 04.06.2024 for the assessment year 2017-2018.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, deriving income under the head “business” and “salary”. The return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 was filed by the appellant disclosing an income of Rs.5,62,040. Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant made capital contribution to the partnership firm, namely, M/s.Thomson Tiles (P) Limited of Rs.68,88,000 during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2017-2018. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment . Sri.Sebastian Thomas Kanichai. Centre (hereinafter “the AO”) formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. In response to the notice u/s.148, the appellant filed the return of income on 28th April, 2021, disclosing the same income as shown in the original return of income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO at a total income of Rs.16,00,040. While doing so, the AO made addition in respect of loan received of Rs.10,38,000 for the failure of the appellant to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the lenders.
Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed 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 251 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, went unnoticed and the appellant had become aware of the order only on 18th February, 2025 when he received a telephonic call from the JAO, and immediately thereafter steps were initiated to file the appeal and the appeal was filed.
I careful perusal of the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay. The department had not made out a case that the averments made in the affidavit in support of the condonation petition are false. Therefore, 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 251 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.
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.
Order pronounced on this 08th day of May, 2025.