ANIL KUMAR PURUSHOTHAMANNAIR,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, THIRUVALLA

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, has not filed any regular return of income for the assessment year 2017- 2018. The Assessing Officer, i.e., the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thiruvalla (“the AO” hereinafter) issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act calling upon the assessee to file the return of income, based on the information that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs.13,50,000 with State Bank of Travancore, Malayalapuzha Branch during the . ‘Anilkumar Purushothaman Nair. demonetization period. The assessee neither complied with the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act nor responded to the hearing notices issued from time to time. Under the circumstances, the AO proceeded with the framing of the assessment order u/s.144of the Act by making an addition of cash deposit of Rs.13,50,000 as unexplained money of the assessee vide order dated 28.12.2019.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 1335 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay.

Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The learned AR submits that the assessee had no knowledge of the assessment order till the recovery proceedings were initiated by the AO on 5th September, 2023. Immediately after he had come to know about the proceedings of the AO, steps were initiated for filing the appeal. In support of this, the assessee filed a condonation petition and submits that the limitation period for filing the appeal should be reckoned from the date of the knowledge of the assessment order.

On the other hand, the learned Sr.DR opposed the submission made by the assessee for condonation of delay and relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue arises for my consideration is . ‘Anilkumar Purushothaman Nair. whether the CIT(A) is justified in refusing the condonation of delay or whether there is any delay in filing the appeal. Before the CIT(A) the assessee filed the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the same were extracted by the CIT(A) in para 4.1 of his order. From the above, it is clear that the assessee had come to know about the proceedings only on 5th September, 2023, when the AO initiated the recovery proceedings for the demand. This fact was affirmed by an affidavit by the assessee. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it should be reckoned that the 5th September, 2023 should be taken as the date of receipt of the assessment order and the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 23rd September, 2023, in view of the settled position of law that it is only the date of knowledge of the order should be taken as the date of receipt of the order. In that view of the matter, there is no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording 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 06th day of February, 2025.