HEMA KUMAR DOGIPARATHI,KUTTIKATTUKARA V. ITO, WARD-3, ALUVA

ITA 1163/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Hema Kumar Dogiparthi, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which had dismissed his earlier appeal ex parte. The original assessment by the Income Tax Officer included additions for sundry creditors and unsecured loans, which the assessee contested. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without addressing the submissions due to the non-appearance of the assessee's representative, attributed to the death of the handling Chartered Accountant during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the assessee's submissions and thus restored the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 361077 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYA RAVINDRAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard

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.1163/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 Hema Kumar Dogiparthi Puthiya Road, Kuttikattukara SFS Flat Opp Kinder Hospital Pathadipalam Kochi – 682 033. PAN : ABUPD8681R. v. The Income Tax Officer Ward -3 Aluva. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.Divya Ravindran, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Hearing : 19.05.2025. Date of Pronouncement : 20.05.2025 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 09.10.2023, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056878103(1) and relates to the assessment year 2015- 2016. 2. There is a delay of 389 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has drawn the attention of the Bench towards the petition for condonation of delay and argued that there was sufficient cause behind the filing of the appeal belatedly. ITA No.1163/Coch/2024. Hema Kumar Dogiparthi. 2 3. The learned DR opposed the prayer of the assessee vis-à- vis the delay. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby condone the delay for the reasons mentioned by the assessee in the duly sworn affidavit and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities is that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income declaring an income of Rs.12,39,540. The same was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and thereafter picked up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO inter alia observed that there was sundry creditors in the books of account of the assessee and the assessee has also received certain unsecured loans from his friends and relatives. Doubting the genuineness of these loans and sundry creditors, the AO made additions in respect of sundry creditors of Rs.21,58,902 u/s.68 and in respect of unsecured loans of Rs.48,26,700 u/s.68 on the ground that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the sundry creditors and loans received from friends and relatives. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT (A). However, nobody appeared from the side of the assessee and the ld.CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte. So far as the consideration in respect of the submissions of the assessee filed before the CIT ITA No.1163/Coch/2024. Hema Kumar Dogiparthi. 3 (A), the ld.CIT (A) has just reproduced the order of assessment and affirmed the order of the AO without dealing with the submissions of the assessee filed before the ld.CIT (A). 7. Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us. Explaining the non-appearance before the ld.CIT (A), the Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Chartered Accountant, who was handling the appeal had tragically passed away during the Covid-19 pandemic. Under the circumstances, the office of the CAs could not be able to attend the proceedings before the ld.CIT(A). The Counsel for the assessee craved for one more opportunity before the ld.CIT(A). 8. The learned DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that in this case the ld.CIT(A)’s office has just issued four notices of hearing and had dismissed the appeal ex parte without dealing with the submissions made by the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is settled position of law that the ld.CIT(A) would decide the merits of the case de hors any representation from the side of the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore this matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) shall afford meaningful ITA No.1163/Coch/2024. Hema Kumar Dogiparthi. 4 opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 20th day of May, 2025. Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin; Dated : 20th 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 "