ANIL KUMAR PURUSHOTHAMANNAIR,PATHANAMTHITTA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, THIRUVALLA

ITA 867/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anilkumar Purushothaman Nair, who did not file a regular return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to a cash deposit of Rs.13,50,000 made during the demonetization period. Nair did not respond to the notices, leading the ITO to make an addition of the deposit as unexplained money under section 144 of the Act. Nair's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 1335 days, which the CIT(A) did not condone. Nair then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which found that the appeal was filed within the appropriate time frame, reckoning from the date Nair became aware of the assessment order, and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470733 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL; SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: STEPHEN GEORGE; CCIT RETD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Recovery proceedings

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member ITA No.867/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Anilkumar Purushothaman Nair Parathundil Puthenveedu Thazham P.O. Malayalapuzha Pathanamthitta – 689 666. PAN : CCSPP3623C. v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Thiruvalla. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Stephen George, CCIT(Retd.) Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Hearing : 03.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.02.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre / Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short] dated 27.08.2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068027523(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, has not filed any regular return of income for the assessment year 2017- 2018. The Assessing Officer, i.e., the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thiruvalla (“the AO” hereinafter) issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act calling upon the assessee to file the return of income, based on the information that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs.13,50,000 with State Bank of Travancore, Malayalapuzha Branch during the ITA No.867/Coch/2024. ‘Anilkumar Purushothaman Nair. 2 demonetization period. The assessee neither complied with the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act nor responded to the hearing notices issued from time to time. Under the circumstances, the AO proceeded with the framing of the assessment order u/s.144of the Act by making an addition of cash deposit of Rs.13,50,000 as unexplained money of the assessee vide order dated 28.12.2019. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 1335 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The learned AR submits that the assessee had no knowledge of the assessment order till the recovery proceedings were initiated by the AO on 5th September, 2023. Immediately after he had come to know about the proceedings of the AO, steps were initiated for filing the appeal. In support of this, the assessee filed a condonation petition and submits that the limitation period for filing the appeal should be reckoned from the date of the knowledge of the assessment order. 5. On the other hand, the learned Sr.DR opposed the submission made by the assessee for condonation of delay and relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue arises for my consideration is ITA No.867/Coch/2024. ‘Anilkumar Purushothaman Nair. 3 whether the CIT(A) is justified in refusing the condonation of delay or whether there is any delay in filing the appeal. Before the CIT(A) the assessee filed the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the same were extracted by the CIT(A) in para 4.1 of his order. From the above, it is clear that the assessee had come to know about the proceedings only on 5th September, 2023, when the AO initiated the recovery proceedings for the demand. This fact was affirmed by an affidavit by the assessee. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it should be reckoned that the 5th September, 2023 should be taken as the date of receipt of the assessment order and the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 23rd September, 2023, in view of the settled position of law that it is only the date of knowledge of the order should be taken as the date of receipt of the order. In that view of the matter, there is no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 06th day of February, 2025. Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin; Dated : 06th February, 2025. Devadas G* ITA No.867/Coch/2024. ‘Anilkumar Purushothaman Nair. 4 Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT, Cochin. 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Cochin "