Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a 176-day delay in filing. The assessee contended unawareness of the ex-parte assessment order (u/s 144) as it was only uploaded to the ITBA portal and not physically served. The assessee became aware of the order only after his bank account was attached, prompting him to access the ITBA portal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the lack of physical service and the assessee's limited digital literacy. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the merits, specifically to verify the source of bank deposits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal when assessment order was not physically served; validity of ex-parte assessment and additions made without verifying the source of bank deposits.
Sections Cited
144, 148, 226(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam “Division” Bench, Visakhapatnam
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Manjunatha, G.
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Lingolu Venkateswara Vs. Income Tax Officer Rao, NARSAPUR (Ward-1) PAN: ADXPL7355H BHIMAVARAM (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/ORDER
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15/10/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y.2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned CIT (A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
Page 1 of 6
The learned CIT (A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay of 176 days in filing the appeal.
Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing”.
At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has not decided the appeal on merit but the same was disposed in limine on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. He has pointed out that there was a delay of 176 days in filing the appeal and the reasons for the delay are reproduced in para 2 of the impugned order that the assessee came to know about the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act only on 20th September 2024. The learned Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessee was not aware about the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as the same was not served on the assessee physically but was uploaded in ITBA Portal. When the assessee visited the Bank, it was told that the Tax Authorities has attached the bank from the assessee and only then the assessee came to know about the impugned order and logged into the ITBA Portal on 20/09/2024. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit of the assessee in support of the cause of delay of 176 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). He has also filed a copy of the attachment letter dated 31/07/2024 whereby the Bank Account of the assessee was attached. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that prior to Page 2 of 6 20th September, 2024, the assessee was not aware about the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. He has pleaded that the delay of 176 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) may be condoned and the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer who has passed an ex-parte order without considering the source of the deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of sale of Paints and the source of the deposits in the bank account is sale proceeds which is already declared in the return of income.
On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently opposed to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee in Form 35 has admitted the service of the assessment order on 12th March, 2025 whereas the appeal was filed before the learned CIT (A) on 22/09/2024. Thus, the learned CIT (A) has rightly rejected the prayer of condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal being not maintainable.
We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. There was a delay of 176 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The assessee in Form-35 has explained the cause of the delay that the assessee came to know about the assessment order only on 20th September, 2024 and thereafter, immediately filed the appeal without any further delay. The assessee stated that the delay was Page 3 of 6 due to the reasons explained which were beyond the control of the assessee as there was no service of the assessment order personally on the assessee. The learned CIT (A) has not disputed the fact that the assessment order was not served physically on the assessee, but it was only uploaded in the ITBA Portal. Now the assessee has explained the cause of the delay in para 2 to 5 of the affidavit as under:
The assessee has also filed the attachment notice of the Assessing Officer dated 31/07/2024 u/s 226(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 whereby the bank account of the assessee was attached. Thus, the reasons explained by the assessee that only on 20/09/2024 when the assessee visited the Bank, he noticed that Page 4 of 6 his bank account was attached by the I.T. Department and then the assessee has found from the I.T Portal that the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee has filed his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 whereby declared the business income of Rs.5,85,230/-. The Assessing Officer has made the addition of the entire deposits/ credits in the bank account of the assessee. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee was having a sufficient cause for the delay of 176 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and accordingly, the same is condoned.
As it is manifest from the record that the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act whereby the entire deposits/ credits in the bank account of the assessee has been added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee has pleaded that the source of deposits in the bank account is the sales/turnover of the assessee against which the assessee has already declared the income and there are other transactions of withdrawals and deposits. However, all these facts and records are yet to be verified and examined. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) and remand the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the relevant record and details to be filed by the assessee to explain the source of the deposits/credits in the bank account. Needless
Page 5 of 6 to say, the assessee shall be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 6th August, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Lingoli Venkateswara Rao, D.No.2-1-7 Madhavaipalem, Narsapur, West Godavari 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 1 JP Road, Sivaraopet BHIMAVARAM, West Godavari A.P 3 Pr. CIT - Visakhapatnam 4 DR, ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench 5 Guard File By Order
Page 6 of 6