BAIJU CHANDRAN,TRICHUR V. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

ITA 322/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sri. Baiju Chandran, who operates a business under the name Chand V Regency, and appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre / Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2020-2021. The initial assessment by the Assessment Unit resulted in a higher declared income due to various disallowances and additions, including undisclosed business income. The appellant's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a significant delay and non-prosecution. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Tribunal, which also dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay, without considering the merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315714 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL; SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: NIVEDITA A KAMATH
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member ITA No.322/Coch/2025 : Asst.Year 2020-2021 Sri.Baiju Chandran X/77, Nellikkathara House Kaippamangalam Trichur – 680 681. PAN : ADSPC8732C. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cir.1(1) & TPS Thrissur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms.Nivedita A Kamath Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre / Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter “the CIT(A)”] dated 18.01.2024 for the assessment year 2020-2021. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, carrying on the business of hotel, restaurant and hospitality services in the name and style of Chand V Regency. The return of income for the assessment year 2020-2021 was filed on 29th March, 2021 declaring income of Rs.5,58,193. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit (hereinafter “the AO”) vide order dated 20.09.2022 at a total income of Rs.16,63,412. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.22,21,605 on account of (i) disallowance of car ITA No.322/Coch/2025. Sri.Baiju Chandran. 2 insurance and repair charges of Rs.1,15,585, (ii) disallowance out of advertisement expenses of Rs.1,06,020, and (iii) addition in respect of undisclosed business income of Rs.20,00,000. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 135 days. In the absence of any explanation, the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay as well as for non-prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal by 407 days. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit, seeking condonation of delay, which reads as under :- “1, Baiju Chandran aged 55 years, S/o.Chandran, Nellikkathara House, Kaippamangalam, Trichur-680681, solemnly affirm and state as follows: residing at X/77, Kerala, do hereby 1. I am the appellant in the above matter and I am conversant with the facts of the case. I am swearing this affidavit on my behalf. 2. The mentioned Appeal is filed against the order passed by the First Appellate Authority for the assessment year 2020-21. The Appellate order were communicated on 18.1.2024. The Appeal therefore ought to have been filed on or before 19.3.2024. The factum of the disposal of the Appeal was brought to the notice of the Appellant only when the jurisdictional Officer informed about the proceedings being completed under Sec.270A of the Income Tax Act telephonically. The Appellant was informed that the proceedings under Sec.270A has been completed vide order dated 29.3.2025 and that it was made available in the site by the Jurisdictional Officer. On being put to notice about the orders, the appellant was shocked to find the impugned order also available in the site. It was at that point of time, the Appellant came to know about the disposal of the orders. On being put to notice of the order, the Appellant down load the file two copies of the same ITA No.322/Coch/2025. Sri.Baiju Chandran. 3 and consulted his consultant who was in charge of the affairs of the Appellant. The Consultant was also not aware about the disposal of the appeal. This has resulted in the impugned order being challenged belatedly. 3. On consulting the consultant he has advised the appellant to engage somebody who appears before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the Appellant was advised to approach the Advocate on record who has since filed appeal, instructed and have filed an appeal belatedly. The detail grounds of appeal Memorandum may be treated as forming part of the Affidavit. The nature of business of the Appellant there was never a necessity to have electronic and therefore, he was not a habit of looking into e-mails regularly which resulted in the impugned order being passed. 4. The appellant has a good case to succeed in the appeal on merits. The Appellant also says and submits that the delay has occasioned not due to any willful nor contumacious conduct of the Appellant but as aforesaid due to an inadvertent omission on the part of the Appellant not to have checked e-mail regularly. This has resulted in delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay in filing the appeal as mentioned in the Petition. If orders as prayed for are not granted, the appellant would be put to irreparable injury, loss and hardship. It is, therefore, prayed accordingly. All the facts stated above are true and correct.” 6. From the above, it would be clear that the reasons stated by the appellant for the delay is that it was not aware of the order passed by the CIT(A), which was communicated on 18th January, 2024 and it was came to the notice of this only on receipt of the penalty order passed u/s.270A of the Act on 29.03.2025. From the above averments made by the appellant that it is not clear as to how the order passed by the CIT(A) communicated on 18th January, 2025, was not noticed by the appellant. Thus, in my considered opinion, the appellant failed to show substantial reason caused for failure of filing the appeal before the Tribunal, and hold that it is not a fit case for condoning the delay. Accordingly, I reject the condonation petition. ITA No.322/Coch/2025. Sri.Baiju Chandran. 4 7. Since, I dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay itself, the issue raised in the appeal, on merits, is not adjudicated. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 13th day of May, 2025. Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin; Dated : 13th May, 2025. Devadas G* Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT, Cochin. 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Cochin "