MR. SURENDRAN BHASKRAN KURUP,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), MUMBAI

The appellant is an employee of a private company M/s. Leeway Logistics at Gurgaon, but the residential address in the Return of Income was stated as Powai, Mumbai. From the AIR information, it is seen that the assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 1.2 crore. It was mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee did not file proper particulars of HRA exemption and bank interest. So, the learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO for short) added the HRA received, cost of investment in property and bank interest while completing the assessment. As the assessee did not respond to the several notices issued by Ld. AO, the assessment was completed by making above three additions.

Aggrieved by the additions, the appellant filed an appeal with the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of three and half years and the appellant sought condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The reasons for delay in filing of appeal are said to be ill health of himself and his father. It was submitted that he has not purchased any property, and that property mentioned in Assessment Order was purchased by his brother. The Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the reasoning given by the appellant for delay in filing an impugned appeal. After quoting several cases-law, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of appellant by concluding that there is no valid reason for filing an appeal with delay and no valid reasons were given for not responding to several notices issued by Ld. AO.

Then, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai with almost same grounds of appeal. It was pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee should not be penalised for not explaining the sources for purchase of property by his brother, who is an NRI. It was also mentioned in “Grounds of Appeal” that the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal because of delay in filing of appeal and did not adjudicate the case on merits.

The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.