KANTHASAMY SHOPPING COMPLEX,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

These two appeals by the assessee are filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai, for the assessment year 2016-17 and 2018-19, dated 31.08.2023.

The brief facts are that, the assessee firm namely Kanthsamy Shopping Complex derives income from ‘house property’. For assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19, the :-2-: 1183& 1184/Chny/2023 rental income after deduction of municipal taxes and 30% claim u/s. 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) at Rs.21,60,535/- and Rs.24,81,433/-, respectively. This amount has been divided among all four partners and chargeable to tax under their individual capacity. The return has been processed by CPC, Bangalore by issuing intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 17.03.2018 and 16.05.2019 for assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19, demanding tax payable at Rs.11,74,080/- and Rs.5,50,826/-, respectively. The intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act was sent to assessee’s e-mail ID, which was provided by appellant for communication in e- filing profile. However, for assessment year 2016-17 the assessee filed Form 35 only on 23.02.2022, with a delay of 1439 days, and for assessment year 2018-19, the assessee filed Form 35 on 22.02.2022, with a delay of 1013 days, explaining reasons that the notices which were received in assessee’s old e-mail ID is not in use. Hence, the assessee was not aware of the proceedings and also due to COVID, there were limited resources, so the assessee could not file the appeals within the time prescribed under law and requested to condone the delay.

Per contra, the ld. DR has opposed the plea of assessee to remit back the case to the ld. CIT(A) as the ld. DR does not want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that :-4-: 1183& 1184/Chny/2023 assessee firm is running a Shopping Complex and due to non- response for intimation of CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the assessee and hence, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine. The plea of the assessee was that the non- appearance/participation was not deliberate and the ld. AR undertakes to appear before the authorities, provided an opportunity is given. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee, in our considered view, the matter needs to go back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. But, the assessee will get another opportunity before the first appellate authority, subject to payment of nominal cost of Rs.5,000/- for each assessment year for failure to attend/respond to the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act.

Thus, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A), by condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for both assessment years, subject to the condition that the assessee should pay cost of Rs.5,000/- for each assessment year to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras