THREE SEASONS EXIM LIMITED,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

On the other hand, the learned DR has opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the delay of 291 days is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the assessee has failed to explain any reasonable cause for the delay.

We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The appeal before the learned CIT (A) was filed through Shri P. Santhosh Kumar, CA and in Form-35, the email ID of Shri P Santosh Kumar, CA was given. Thus, it is apparent that the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) as well as the impugned order were sent to the Email ID of Page 3 of 8 Shri P. Santosh Kumar, CA who initially responded to the notices, but thereafter, no compliance were made to the notices issued by the learned CIT (A). This fact is also evident from the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT (A). The assessee has explained that the appeal of the assessee as well as of the associated concerns were pending before the learned CIT (A) and due to the other appeals of the associated concerns, there might be some confusion in compliance with the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) and sent to the email ID of Shri P. Santosh Kumar, CA. Thus, it is clear that the assessee was not aware about the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A), until when the present AR of the assessee logged into the Income Tax Portal for taking a print out of the assessment order and noticed that the impugned order was already passed by the learned CIT (A) on 29/02/2024. The assessee has given the reasons that only on 27/01/2025 when the appeal of the associated concern “Three Season Warehousing” was listed for hearing before the ITAT Vizag Bench, the assessment order of the assessee company was required to be filed and for that purpose, the AR of the assessee logged into the I.T Portal and found the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A). Thus, the reasons explained by the assessee are based on the factual events and due to the non-participation of Shri P. Santosh Kumar, CA and consequential order passed by the learned CIT (A) sent to the email ID of the CA was not brought to the knowledge of the assessee has resulted the delay of 291 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, in the facts and Page 4 of 8 circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee has explained a sufficient cause for the delay of 291 days in filing the present appeal, hence, the same is condoned.

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.

The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that due to improper representation before the learned CIT (A), the impugned order was passed ex-parte. He has reiterated the reasons for non-representation before the learned CIT (A) as explained for the delay in filing the present appeal and therefore, the learned AR has submitted that when the assessee was not aware about the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) which were sent to the email ID of Shri P. Santosh Kumar, CA who initially responded to the first notice but thereafter, stopped responding to Page 5 of 8 the notices of the learned CIT (A) as well as bringing the status of the appeal proceedings to the notice of the assessee. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to explain its case before the learned CIT (A). He has referred to the relevant documents filed as contained in the Paper Book running into 111 pages and submitted that the assessee has produced all the relevant record to show that the source of the share capital introduced by the persons. However, since there was no representation before the learned CIT (A), therefore, the relevant record could not be considered by the learned CIT (A) at the time of passing the impugned order.

On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that despite sufficient opportunities given by the learned CIT (A), the assessee failed to produce the supporting evidence. He has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT (A).

We have considered the rival submissions as well as perused the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer has made an addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act in respect of the share capital introduced which was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT (A). The assessee filed the confirmation from the loan creditors and ledger a/c in the books of the assessee along with the bank a/c statement of the assessee showing the receipt of the amount from the subscribers to the share capital of the assessee. However, the learned CIT (A) has Page 6 of 8 dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of further submission as well as the details/evidence to substantiate the claim of the assessee. The learned CIT (A) has stated in the impugned order that there is an inadequate compliance on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has now explained the reasons for the inadequate compliance. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the assessee has filed the relevant record to explain the source of the share capital subscribed to by the parties as well as the genuineness of the transaction which requires to be verified. Accordingly, the impugned ex-parte order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication for considering the relevant details, record and evidences filed by the assessee after affording an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We order accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.