CHERUKURI VEERRAJU SUBBALAKSHMI GARDENS,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1049821492(1) dated 16.02.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 29.01.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. Cherukuri Veerraju Subbalakshmi Gardens, Rajahmundry

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring business income at Rs.12,24,041/- and income from other sources at Nil. The income from other sources is arrived after deducting interest paid of Rs.24,18,815/- from interest receipts of Rs.24,18,815/-. The CPC while processing the return considered the interest receipts of Rs.24,37,839/- as per 26AS and not allowed any deduction for interest paid.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte for non prosecution of the appeal. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with the delay of 303 days by raising the following grounds of appeal :

At the outset, the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the appeal was filed belatedly since the appeal was migrated to National Faceless Assessment Centre and from then the hearing notices were issued electronically. The email account was registered by the Chartered Accountant at the time of filing the return of income of the assessee and the partners were not aware of the login details of the email account. As such they were not aware of the notices. Even the Chartered Accountant did not inform the assessee about the notices and hence the assessee could not respond. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 16.02.2023 and the assessee was not aware of the order for the very same reasons. Therefore, the assessee could not file appeal within time. He pleaded to condone the delay of 303 days and admit the appeal for hearing.

On the other hand, the Ld.DR submitted that the department has issued notices to the assessee electronically and once notice is issued it should be treated as notice deemed to have been served on the assessee and also the assessee has not responded even before the Ld.CIT(A) and even after passing the order by the Ld.CIT(A), it has not taken any steps to prefer further appeal before ITAT for about one year. Therefore, the explanation given by the assessee is not sufficient to condone the huge Cherukuri Veerraju Subbalakshmi Gardens, Rajahmundry delay of 303 days. The Ld.DR, therefore, pleaded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in-limine. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the appeal was filed with the huge delay of 303 days and the only contention of the assessee is that the Chartered Accountant of the assessee firm has not informed about the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee firm has not filed appeal within time. The assessee has not filed affidavit from the Chartered Accountant to establish the fact that he has not informed the assessee about the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and also the assessee has not given any valid reason why the Chartered Accountant has not informed about the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 16.02.2023. Apart from this, even before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has not appeared inspite of various notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the firm view that the assessee has not established reasonable cause to condone the delay. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the grounds raised