FAIZAL LATHEEF,ALAPPUZHA V. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA

ITA 141/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Faizal Latheef, who was engaged in transportation and movie production, and filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed his appeal in limine due to a delay of around six months. The original assessment for the year 2016-2017 was scrutinized under section 143(3) and later set aside under section 263, leading to a fresh assessment that added Rs.38,03,905 to the assessee's income under section 69A, citing unexplained capital introduction. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the condonation of delay application, which led to the current appeal before the ITAT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360916 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Judicial Member ITA No.141/Coch/2025 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 Faizal Latheef Thaiparambil House Power House Ward Alappuzha – 688 007. PAN : ABIPL7952M. v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1 & TPS Alappuzha. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Hearing : 20.05.2025. Date of Pronouncement : 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM : The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre / learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short] dated 14.12.2024, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1071225338(1) and relates to the assessment year 2016- 2017. 2. Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee was engaged in transportation and movie production business. During the year under consideration, it has filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.21,73,510. The same was selected for ITA No.141/Coch/2025. Faizal Latheef. 2 scrutiny and thereafter the assessment u/s.143(3) has been framed. The said assessment order was reviewed by the CIT in terms of provisions of section 263 of the Act and finally set aside by the CIT and thereafter the AO passed the fresh assessment order, which is impugned before us. In consequential order, the AO made an addition of Rs.38,03,905 to the returned income of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act. The case of the AO is that the assessee has failed to explain the source of introduction of capital of Rs.38,03,905. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of around six months. The ld.CIT(A) without considering the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us and submitted in form 36 that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. Today, when the matter was called up for hearing, nobody appeared from the side of the assessee, despite proper service of notice. However, after seeing the record, we are of the view that this matter can be disposed of on the basis of the material available on record. Therefore, we proceed to decide the matter on merits. 5. The learned DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. ITA No.141/Coch/2025. Faizal Latheef. 3 6. We have heard the learned DR and perused the documents annexed in appeal before us. We are of the view that the reason given by the assessee for late filing of the appeal was a plausible reason inasmuch as the office of the assessee was closed and nobody was there to receive the notice of Income Tax Department. The assessee has come to know about the fate of assessment order when the officer of the department informed to the assesse. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and coupled with the fact that the delay is an ordinate delay of 141 days, we are of the view that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the matter. Therefore, we restore this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the case of the assessee on merits, in accordance with law. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 22nd day of May, 2025. Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin; Dated : 22nd May, 2025. Devadas G* ITA No.141/Coch/2025. Faizal Latheef. 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 "