CHALLA SWATHI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

आदेश /O R D E R

PER SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Challa Swathi 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 61 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was passed in the case of the appellant on 20.03.2024. As such, the appeal against this order ought to have been filed on or before 19.05.2024. However, the appellant could file the appeal only on 19.07.2024 resulting in a delay of 61 days in filing the appeal.

3. Thus, the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal is due to the reasons explained above which were beyond the control of the appellant. The delay is nether intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the appellant prays the hon'ble ITAT that the said delay of 61 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and appropriate orders may kindly be passed in the interest of rendering substantial justice.”

Page No. 2 Challa Swathi 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act. It was found that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.26,02,800/- in the bank account and paid credit card bills of Rs. 12,58,361/- during the year under consideration. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, were issued to the assessee seeking details regarding source of the deposit and credit card bills payment. In response to the same, the assessee submitted that the credit card bill payments were made out of savings bank accounts maintained with HDFC and SBI. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Assessing Officer observed that the submissions are not acceptable as assessee could not explain the source of cash deposited to the tune of Rs.14,30,800/-. Thus, Assessing Officer added the same as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act. Further on verification of the information furnished by the assessee, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that assessee had received salary of Rs. 18,530/- from M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. as reflected in the savings bank account which was not offered to tax by the assessee and completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

Page No. 3

“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not rendering any decision w.r.t. the merits of the grounds raised

4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”

Page No. 4 Challa Swathi opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not appear nor complied to the notices issued. Considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and totality of facts and keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, I am of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration and the assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and in turn Ld. CIT(A) call for remand report, if necessary, and dispose off the case on merits. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06th September, 2024.