ANGURAJ GAJANDHIRAN,SALEM vs. ITO WARD 1(6),SALEM, SALEM

The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for A.Y 2018-19. The A.O received information that the assessee during the year under consideration has deposited cash to the tune of Rs.3,06,51,790/- and has

There was a delay of 58 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that he was advised by the tax Consultant initially to file an application u/s. 264 of the Act instead of filing of appeal. The assessee further submitted that when another Consultant was consulted the assessee advised to file an appeal before the CIT(A) and hence the delay. The CIT(A) did not accept the submissions of the assessee and did not condone the delay. Further, the assessee did not respond to various other notices issued by the CIT(A) to file supporting evidences for the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

There is a delay of 384 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the petition for condonation, the assessee has stated that the assessee was not aware of the appeal being dismissed by the CIT(A) and was not properly advised by the C.A who was taking care of the income tax matters. The assessee further stated that due to prolonged ill-health of assessee's wife, he could not devote time and has left the entire income tax related matters to the C.A. The assessee has also stated that only when the assessee's bank accounts were frozen by the Income-tax Dept., the assessee came to know about the appeal being dismissed by the CIT(A) and immediately preferred appeal

Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay of 384 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. We notice that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the reasons submitted by the assessee stating that he was not properly advised by the counsel. We also notice that the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the CIT(A) and has not properly represented the case both for condonation and on merits. Considering the facts peculiar to the assessee's case, we are of the considered view that the appeal needs to be sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of the delay in filing the appeal before him. The CIT(A) is further directed if the delay is condoned, to consider the grounds of the assessee on legal issue pertaining to jurisdiction of the jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) who issued the notice u/s.148 instead of faceless assessing officer (FAO) after CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022. The assessee is directed to substantiate the reasons for delay filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and represent the case without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly

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