Govindaraj Saravanan Manikandan, Chennai V. ITO, NCW 8(1), Chennai

ITA 2020/CHNY/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5611 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 69A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘सी’ ᭠यायपीठ,चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी महावीर ᳲसह, उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी एस. आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.: 2020/Chny/2024 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Govindaraj Saravanan Manikandan, Kasi Flats 5 th C Block, 8 th Street, Annai Sathya Nagar, Ramapuram, Chennai -600 089. [PAN: DACPM-7270-R] v. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward -8(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 19.08.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 16.07.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2022-23. 2. The main ground involved in this appeal is as regards to the NFAC dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of a delay in filing the appeal before NFAC. :-2-: ITA. No: 2020/Chny/2024 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and authorized distributor of airtel payment bank limited. The assessee filed his return of income on 26.07.2022, declaring net taxable income of Rs.4,92,340/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment for a reason of large cash deposits in bank accounts. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act on various dates, but the assessee neither responded to the notices nor submitted any relevant details. Left with no option ld.AO passed exparte assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 19.03.2024, by making addition of Rs.33,62,56,865/- as income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act to be taxed as per section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 4. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal with a delay 55 days. The ld.CIT(A), after perusing the reasons for delay in filing of appeal held that there is no reasonable cause for filing appeal with 55 days delay and hence, declined the condonation of delay in filing of appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. :-3-: ITA. No: 2020/Chny/2024 5. The Ld.AR stated that the appeal was filed before CIT(A) on 23.08.2022 thereby there is a delay of 55 days. The ld.AR, when query was raised by the Bench, stated that the communication details on the portal was linked to Email ID of assessee’s previous auditor, who had not informed the assessment order and the option of the appeal. The assessee became aware of this issue later, and despite updating my email address on the portal, the notices continued to be sent to the auditor’s email address. The auditor forwarded only the latest notices to assessee after instruction to him to communicate the notices on time until the email Id is updated in the portal. When the details of the assessment order were brought to the notice of present auditor by the assessee, the appeal was filed accordingly with a delay of 55 days. In term of the above, the ld.AR stated that this is a reasonable cause and delay is also for 55 days. In reply, the ld.CIT-DR stated that the cause deliberated by the ld.AR does not seem to be supported by any evidence and also it is a make believe story and hence, it should not be accepted. 6. After hearing rival contentions and going through the fact that the delay is of 55 days and the assessee claims that the communication address of the previous auditors in the portal was not updated and subsequently, the has been updated by the :-4-: ITA. No: 2020/Chny/2024 assessee and assessee was not aware of any assessment order passed. It seems that these are not supported by any documentary evidence but going through the smallness of delay of 55 days and the reason stated, we are inclined to condone the delay before the CIT(A)-NFAC. In term of the above, the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC is set aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing 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 in the open court at the time of hearing on 19 th August, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (महावीर िसंह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपाÚय¢/Vice President (एस. आर.रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखासदèय/Accountant Member चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 19 th August, 2024 JPV आदेशकीŮितिलिपअŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF