IRIEN VEIGAS,MANGALURU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU

ITA 1368/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ms. Irien Veigas against the orders of the AO and CIT(A), which were both ex-parte. The AO had treated an investment made by the assessee as unexplained under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, due to non-receipt of any return or reply from the assessee regarding the notices issued. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision on both procedural and merit grounds. The assessee contended that she had not purchased any property as alleged and provided a sale deed dated 07/06/2017, which was in the name of a company, not her. The Tribunal found that the notices were not properly communicated to the assessee's current email ID, leading to her unawareness of the proceedings, and thus allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the lower authorities' orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 776888 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2025
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: HEMANT PAI
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment
• Section: 148; 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1368/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ms. Irien Veigas, Flat No. 101, Amrit Sagar Apartment, 1st Floor, Pilikula Road, Moodshedde, Mangaluru – 575 028. PAN: AIFPV4315A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Mangaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Hemant Pai, CA Revenue by : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03-09-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15-09-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 31/12/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 106 days. The assessee also enclosed an application to condone the said delay. In the said application, the assessee submitted that the hearing notices u/s. 250 by the Ld.CIT(A) were sent to an email ID of the erstwhile consultant instead of sending the same to the current consultant’s email ID which was also mentioned in form 35 as well as available in the portal of the department Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 1368/Bang/2025 and therefore the assessee had no knowledge about the said appeal hearings and therefore not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A). When the assessee logged into the portal during the month of December, 2024, he came to know about the hearing notice dated 18/11/2024 and immediately the assessee filed a response on 23/12/2024 and requested to post the appeal in the month of January, 2025. The Ld.CIT(A) without considering the said request had proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte and the order was also forwarded to the email ID of the erstwhile consultant and therefore the assessee has no knowledge about the order communicated through the email. The assessee also filed the copy of the screenshot of e-filing profile and assessment e- proceedings in support of her case that the notices as well as the order were not communicated to the correct email ID and therefore the delay has been occurred. The assessee further submitted that only in the month of June, 2025, the new consultant logged into the portal and found that the Ld.CIT(A) had passed the order on 31/12/2024 itself. Thereafter steps were taken to file the present appeal and hence there is a delay of 106 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. We have considered the reasons stated by the assessee and also the documents filed in support of the said submissions and we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause from filing the appeal before this Tribunal in time and therefore we condone the delay of 106 days in filing the appeal and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. 4. At the outset, we find that the order of the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte orders. The case of the AO is that the assessee had purchased a property but not filed any return of income and also not filed any replies to the various notices issued to her and therefore the AO had presumed that the source for the said investment was not explained and therefore treated the said investment as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) also decided the appeal on the limitation ground as well as on the merits ex-parte. It is the case of the assessee that she has not Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 1368/Bang/2025 purchased any immovable property as alleged by the AO and in fact the assessee filed a paper book and enclosed the alleged copy of the sale deed dated 07/06/2017 and on that basis, she submitted that the allegation made by the AO is not correct. 6. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. It is the case of the assessee that the allegation that she had purchased a property is not correct since she had not effected any such purchases during the said year. Further, we have considered the screenshot of the e-filing profile and the assessment e-proceedings and we found that all the notices issued by the AO were sent to the email ID, [e-mail] whereas the e-filing profile of the assessee shows the email ID as [e-mail]. Therefore there is some force in the arguments made by the assessee that no notices were received by her from the AO as well as from the Ld.CIT(A). Further, the assessee had denied the above said purchases made by her and also filed a copy of the sale deed dated 07/06/2017 which was in the name of a company M/s. Kanchana Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Co. We are also not sure that the said sale deed furnished by the assessee is the disputed sale deed since the AO had not given any details of the alleged sale deed through which the assessment was reopened u/s. 148 of the Act. 9. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee had not provided with a reasonable opportunity to explain her case before both the authorities. We, therefore set aside the orders of the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration, after hearing the assessee. We have also made it clear that the AO should also investigate the matter further and provide the sale deed copy or atleast Printed from counselvise.com Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 1368/Bang/2025 the sale deed number through which the assessee had purchased the property so that the assessee could explain the source for the said alleged investment made by her. During the course of assessment proceedings, it is also open to the assessee to place all the materials before the AO for adjudicating the issue in the right direction. We also direct the AO to send the notices through the email ID of the assessee mentioned in the e-filing profile and thereafter complete the assessment in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 15th September, 2025. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "