KYALASANAHALLI NARAYANAPPA SUBRAMANI,CNO KOTHANUR POST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1) BENGALURU , KORAMANGALA

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 7.5.2024 in respect of the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee is an individual aged about 52 years and doing agricultural activities. The AO made an assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by making an addition of Rs.75,44,398/- as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Against the said proceedings, the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 99 days. The ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and therefore, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before us challenging the said order on the following grounds:

ITA No.1256/Bang/2024 Kyalasanahalli Narayanappa Subramani, Bengaluru Page 2 of 4

ITA No.1256/Bang/2024 Kyalasanahalli Narayanappa Subramani, Bengaluru Page 3 of 4 3. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. filed a paper book by enclosing synopsis as well as the various hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and also copy of ITR filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee being an agriculturist and also not well educated, he was not well versed with the modern technology and therefore, he was not viewed the e-mails, SMSs, etc. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) in his notice dated 27.9.2021 had condoned the delay in filing the appeal but while passing final order, he had rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was time barred. The ld. A.R. further stated that the assessee is having a good case on merits since the agricultural income earned by the assessee was shown in the return and therefore, he contended that further additions made u/s 68 of the Act is unwarranted. 4. The ld. D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. As rightly contended by the ld. A.R. in the notice dated 27.9.2021, DIN & Letter No.ITBA/NFAC/F/17/2021-22/1035926243(1), the ld. CIT(A) had given the following finding:

ITA No.1256/Bang/2024 Kyalasanahalli Narayanappa Subramani, Bengaluru Page 4 of 4 5.1 As seen from the above said notice, the ld. CIT(A) had condoned the delay of 99 days in filing the appeal but strangely while deciding the appeal on merits, had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. In our view, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not correct since he had already condoned the delay and therefore, he has no authority to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation while passing the final order on 7.5.2024. Further, we have also considered the submission of the assessee to the effect that he being an uneducated person, has not verified the e-mails and therefore, he was not able to appear before the ld. CIT(A), seems to be a reasonable and acceptable one. In fine we have satisfied ourselves that the reasons stated by the assessee are a reasonable one and therefore, we are setting aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits after granting a personnel hearing. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th Aug, 2024

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Soundararajan K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 28th Aug, 2024. VG/SPS Copy to:

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.