DOMINIC SAVIO DASILVA ,USA vs. CIT , DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.1403/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Dominic Savio Dasilva, USA, Vs. CIT, 2488, Willow Glen, Circle– Intl. Taxation 1(2)(2) Dr. Colorado Springs Co. Delhi USA PAN :AQXPD0318B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Sh. Vikas Jain, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Virendra Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 30.05.2023

ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated

10.05.2021 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42,

Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18.

against ex parte disposal of the appeal by learned first appellate

authority, that too, in limine without condoning the delay.

staying in United States of America (USA). As could be seen from

ITA No.1403/Del/2021 AY: 2017-18

the materials on record, the assessee owns a property in Goa,

wherefrom, he earns rental income. In course of assessment

proceeding for the impugned assessment year, the Assessing

Officer noticed that during the demonetization period the assessee

had deposited cash in his bank account. Therefore, he called

upon the assessee to explain the source of such cash deposits. In

response, the assessee submitted that the cash deposits were

made out of the earlier withdrawals. The Assessing Officer,

however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee

and completed the assessment by adding back the cash deposits

of Rs.13,43,000/- to the income of the assessee under section

69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Against the

assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before

the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of 379 days.

Explaining the delay in filing the appeal, the assessee submitted

that the chartered accountant, who was looking after the income

tax related matters of the assessee, had given his address for

communication of notices etc. He submitted, because of that,

notices were communicated to the concerned chartered

accountant. He submitted, though, the concerned chartered

accountant, initially, complied with the notices, however, 2 | P a g e

ITA No.1403/Del/2021 AY: 2017-18

subsequently, he did not do so. Therefore, there was delay in

filing the appeal. The aforesaid submission of the assessee did not

find favour with learned Commissioner (Appeals), who proceeded

to dismiss assessee’s appeal in limine without condoning the

delay.

record. Before us, it is the say of the assessee that without

affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee,

the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by an ex

parte order, that too, without condoning the delay. Therefore,

learned counsel made a submission for setting aside the

impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) with a

direction to decide the appeal on merits.

matter can be restored back to the first appellate authority to

decide the appeal after granting opportunity of being heard to the

assessee.

delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. The

assessee had filed application seeking condonation of delay by

stating that the concerned chartered accountant, who was 3 | P a g e

ITA No.1403/Del/2021 AY: 2017-18

entrusted to look after the appeal, did not comply with the

notices. Considering the fact that the assessee is a non-resident,

the aforesaid explanation certainly appears plausible. In any case

of the matter, the impugned order of learned Commissioner

(Appeals) does not reveal whether any reasonable opportunity of

being heard was granted to the assessee before dismissing the

appeal. Thus, in our view, there is gross violation of Rules of

Natural Justice.

impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore

the matter back to him for de novo adjudication after providing

due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

We expect the learned Commissioner (Appeals) would not be too

hyper-technical while dealing with the issue of condonation of

delay and must make all endeavour to decide the appeal on

merits. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th May, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SAKTIJIT DEY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30th May, 2023. RK/- 4 | P a g e

ITA No.1403/Del/2021 AY: 2017-18