MUKKA RAJESHWARAIAH,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

Aggrieved by the order dated 04/03/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Mukka Rajeshwaraiah (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal with a delay of 17 days.

At the outset, learned AR submitted that the assessee furnished all the relevant information of his case to Shri Kommineni Venkateshwara Rao, who is looking after the tax matters of the assessee and the assessee was under the wrong impression that the said Chartered Accountant would have done the necessary follow up action regarding the case. After some time, the assessee came to know about the appellate order through the local office of the Income Tax Department in the second week of May, 2024, reminding for payment of outstanding demand. Then only the assessee came to know the death of the said Chartered Accountant, who is looking after the tax matters. And also came to know that the appellate order was not seen and monitored by the office staff of the deceased Chartered Accountant. At that stage, the assessee immediately consulted another advocate, to look after the case of the assessee and that is the reason why the assessee could not attend before the learned CIT(A) nor the information thereof could be passed on to the assessee, which resulted in ex parte order. Learned AR also submitted that precisely this is the reason why, this appeal was also filed with a delay.

In this connection, the assessee also filed condonation petition for delay along with a copy of the death certificate of the Chartered Accountant. Learned AR further submitted that the assessee has got good case to be presented, but it is only because of the circumstances beyond his control i.e., due to death of his counsel, the appeal was disposed of ex parte and by such ex parte proceedings, assessee does not stand to gain. Thus, learned AR submitted that given an opportunity, now assessee is ready to present all the evidence before the learned CIT(A) and pursue the appeal diligently and on that ground, learned AR prayed for an opportunity in the interest of justice.

Learned AR further submitted that under section 250(6) of the Act, the learned CIT(A) shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon, the reason for the decision and it is not open for the learned CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal in limine, stating that for non-prosecution, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Per contra, learned DR vehemently opposed the request made on behalf of the assessee on the ground that more than sufficient opportunity was granted by the Revenue authorities, but without availing the same, it is not open for the assessee now to seek one more opportunity. According to learned DR, if such a request is granted, it would lead to never ending process.

I have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. As per the record it is clear that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee by the learned CIT(A), to make submissions and file documents in support of his case. However, at the same, due to the death of the Chartered Accountant, who has been looking after the litigation affairs on behalf of the assessee, there is nothing to disbelieve the explanation of the assessee that the assessee could not know the stage of the proceedings.

Having observed that since the assessee failed to avail the same, the learned CIT(A) while placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer.

Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not comply with the requirement of Section 250(6) of the Act and cannot be sustained. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) to pass the order in compliance with section 250(6) of the Act, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.