VEERAPANDIAN VKP,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD 4, TIRUNELVELI

Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, it was stated by the ld. AR Shri Ananadd Babunath, FCA that the assessee preferred an appeal on 27.09.2018 before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 605 days. The said appeal was migrated to NFAC Centre vide proceedings dated 25.09.2020. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC issued hearing notice on 07.01.2021 and 03.05.2023. According to the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the assessee failed to explain sufficient cause in filing the appeal with delay of 605 days and dismissed the appeal in limine without discussing anything on merits.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and raised the above said ground.

The ld. AR submits that no notice was received by the assessee, whereby, could not appear before the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A). He submits that the Assessing Officer computed the capital gains on incorrect manner and prayed to afford an opportunity by remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as the assessee is ready to furnish evidence to substantiate his claim.

The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT opposed the submissions of the ld. AR in seeking remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. She submits that the Assessing Officer has given many opportunities by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act and also pre-assessment notice. The assessee intentionally did not appear before the Assessing Officer who rightly determined the capital gains. Further, the ld. DR drew our attention to the impugned order and submits that the assessee could not avail two opportunities given by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, but, the assessee did not furnish any evidence or written submissions and thus, prayed to dismiss the ground raised by the assessee.

Having heard both the parties, we note that admittedly, there was no response from the assessee in terms of notices issued under section 148 of the Act and also pre-assessment notice. Having no option, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment according to best judgement under section 144 of the Act. Having aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer dated 30.12.2016, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 27.09.2018 with a delay of 605 days, wherein, it is noted that there was no response to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, which clearly shows the negligent attitude of the assessee. Coming to the arguments of the ld. AR that no notice was served on the assessee, we note that on examination of Form 35, it is observed under Column “personal information”, an e-mail ID of the ld. AR was given. The ld. DR submits that there is no manual intervention in issuing notices in ITBA portal, when command is given, notice will be raised automatically to the e-mail ID provided in the “personal information” as well as address on which notice has to be sent as stated under Col. 17 of Form 35. On perusal of the Form 35, we note that e-mail ID of the ld. AR was provided under “personal information” as well as under Col. No.

There is no evidence before us showing that no notice was properly served on the assessee except a statement by the ld. AR that no notices were served on the assessee. Since the assessment was completed exparte of the assessee and dismissal of the appeal in limine by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, in the interest of justice and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the ld. AR, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay of 605 days subject to the payment of ₹.25,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall satisfy the same and pass order on merits. The assessee is at liberty file evidence to substantiate his claim. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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