GEETHA GOPALAN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 18/03/2024 vide DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062843516(1) for the assessment year 2018-19.

At the outset, we note that there was no appearance before the ld. CIT-A by the assessee despite various notices were issued to the assessee intimating the date of hearing. In the absence of any cooperation from the side of the assessee, the ld. CIT-A confirmed the order passed by the AO. However, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the notices were issued by the ld. CIT-A at the email ID of the old tax consultant whereas the assessee has furnished the new email ID in form 35 while filing the appeal before the ld. CIT-A. As per the ld. AR the notices were issued at the email ID kskrishnanandco@yahoo.co. which was furnished in the income tax return, but the email ID furnished in form 35 is hiremagalur.gopalan@gmail.com. Accordingly, the ld. AR contended that the assessee could neither appeared before the ld. CIT-A nor file the appeal against the order of the ld. CIT-A within the stipulated time. As such, it was contended by the ld. AR that the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT for 19 days should be condoned as there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee to file the appeal before the ITAT within the stipulated time and further prayed to set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue did not raise any serious objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.