NEERAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,BAHRAICH vs. ITO-1, BAHRAICH

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 27.10.2018 showing total income of Rs.11,28,170/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) citing the reason ‘Capital Gains/Income on sale of Property’. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs.27,75,170 /- and made addition of Rs.16,47,000/- as there was no compliance on the part of the assessee.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC also came to be dismissed in limine on account of non-compliance by the assessee.

Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the action of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:

None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.

At the outset, it was noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 218 days. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal stating therein that the assessee had no knowledge of computer and online work. It has been further submitted that the appellate orders/notices had been served upon the assessee through online mode. Under these circumstances, the appeal was filed belatedly by 218 days. It has been prayed that the delay caused in filing the appeal is not deliberate and beyond the control of the assessee which may please be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits.

Per contra, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative had no objection to the condonation of delay.

I have duly considered the issue of condonation of delay and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and specially noting that the bona fide of the assessee in this regard is beyond doubt, I condone the delay of 218 days and admit the appeal for the purpose of regular hearing.

The ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the Assessing Officer (AO).

I have heard Senior Departmental Representative and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that there was complete non compliance on the part of the assessee during the course of first appellate proceedings but the same stands explained and, therefore, looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, I restore this file to the Office of the AO with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case and I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the AO in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the AO shall be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.

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