MANURAJ,MANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MANGALORE

ITA 1488/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mrs. Manuraj against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue arose from the AO's decision under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, due to the assessee's non-response to notices, leading to the treatment of a property transaction as an unexplained source of income. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte as she failed to appear. The Tribunal noted the assessee's delay in filing the appeal (126 days), attributed to personal hardships including the death of her son and her husband's illness, which were supported by medical records. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it, granting the assessee another opportunity to present her case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793028 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: V. SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

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. 1488/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mrs. Manuraj, Flat No. 203, Swarun, Shiva Prasad Gold, Land Link Road, Derebail, Konchady, Mangalore – 575 008. PAN: ACXPM9241L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Mangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 23-09-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23-09-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 30/12/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we find that the assessment order was passed u/s. 144 of the Act since the assessee had not responded to any of the notices issued by the AO. Therefore the AO had treated the transaction of immovable property effected during the year as source not explained. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). But Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 1488/Bang/2025 unfortunately, the assessee had not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore an ex-parte order has been passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee challenged the said ex-parte order before this Tribunal. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 126 days and filed an application to condone the said delay. In the condonation application, the assessee submitted that she is a senior citizen and she depended upon his son Shri Swarun Raj in the income tax matters but unfortunately the assessee’s son passed away on 09/06/2013. Thereafter her husband was also affected with Alzheimer and Dementia and the assessee also suffered from depression and anxiety after the death of her son. The assessee also filed the medical records in support of her submissions. 4. The email ID of the assessee’s son [e-mail] was provided in the portal as well as in form 35 and therefore no notices were received by the assessee. The assessee came to know about the order of the Ld.CIT(A) upon the receipt of the penalty notice dated 23/06/2025 and thereafter through the portal, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was downloaded. After getting opinion from the present counsel, the appeal papers were made ready and the appeal was filed with a delay of 126 days. 5. We have considered the said submissions and the medical records enclosed by the assessee and we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time before this Tribunal and therefore we are inclined to condone the delay of 126 days in filing the appeal. 6. The case of the assessee is that all the notices by the AO as well as by the Ld.CIT(A) were sent to the email ID of her son Late Shri Swarun Raj and therefore she has no knowledge about the proceedings initiated by the authority. We have also perused the form 35 in which the same email ID was mentioned. Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 1488/Bang/2025 7. Considering the said facts and also in the interest of justice, we are of the view that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to furnish the details of the immovable property and to show the source for the said purchases. We, therefore set aside the order of the lower authorities and remit this issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 23rd 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 "