CHANDRASEKARAN SATISH,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 8 (4),, CHENNAI

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Chennai in dated 24.04.2019 for assessment year 2014-15.

Shri. Chandrasekaran Satish, the assessee, is a proprietor of M/s. Palace Interiors and a franchise of M/s. Orchid Designs Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment year 2014-15, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) on 29.12.2016. Aggrieved against that order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal stating that as per Form No. 35, the date of service of assessment order u/s. 143(3) is 29.12.2016, the E-appeal has been filed on 01.02.2017, wherein there is 3 days delay in filing the appeal. As per column 14 of Form 35, the assessee has catergorically stated that there is no delay in filing the appeal and further as per column 15 with respect to condonation of delay is also blank. Therefore, as per the assessee, there is no delay and there is no reason for condonation of delay. However, there are 3 days delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has also misrepresented the facts that there is no delay and the assessee has not sought for condonation of delay as well. Under these circumstances, the CIT(A) cannot suo-moto condone the delay. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee inadvertently mentioned the date of order u/s. 143(3) i.e., 29.12.2016, as the date of service of order in the form no. 35. It is submitted that the assessment order along with demand notice was received by the assessee on 03.01.2017 and the appeal was filed on 01.02.2017 i.e., within the time prescribed u/s. 249(2). In this regard, the assessee filed a copy of acknowledgment of the Postal Department, wherein the postal department receipt is on 02.01.2017, in print, and the assessee’s receipt is mentioned as on 03.01.2017, by hand.

We heard the rival submissions and find merit in the assessee’s plea. It is seen from the order of the CIT(A) that the Ld. CIT(A) has not required the assessee to explain the discrepancy noted by him in Form No. 35 with regard to the above issues, however disposed the appeal without giving an opportunity to the assessee. Such an action is against the principles of natural justice. Since, there is no delay in :-4-: CIT(A) and remit the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) to offer effective opportunity to the assessee and decide the issues on merit in accordance with law.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.