MOTURU CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,USA V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 474/VIZ/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Moturu Chandra Sekhara Rao, a Non-Resident Indian residing in the USA, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal was related to the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issue was the delay in filing the appeal, which was found to be 47 days late. The assessee argued that he was unaware of the notices and orders due to them being stored in spam, and he only became aware when penalty notices were received physically. The tribunal, however, was not convinced by the assessee's explanations and dismissed the appeal due to the lack of sufficient cause for the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28693 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA VILLURI

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणम पीठ मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 474/Viz/2024 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Moturu Chandra Sekhara Rao, U.S.A. [PAN : BINPM8812Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada. अपीलाथȸ / Appellant Ĥ× यथȸ / Respondent Ǔनधा[ǐरती ɮवारा/Assessee by: None राजè व ɮवारा/Revenue by: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of hearing: 09/01/2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Pronouncement on: 09/01/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 06/08/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NaƟonal Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Chandra Sekhara Rao Moturu (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal. 2. When this maƩer is called, there is no representaƟon and it would be showing from the record that the assessee had furnished the address of the United States of America in addiƟon to email Id. Record reveals ITA No474 /Viz/2024 Page 2 of 4 that an email was sent to the assessee noƟfying the date of hearing. But there is no response. 3. On a perusal of the record, it is found that there is a delay of 47 days in preferring this appeal. It could be seen from the order of the First Appellate Authority that there was delay in preferring the first appeal. The impugned order reveals that the reason for delay stated by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority is that “the appellant is not aware of the noƟces issued and orders passed. The appellant got the knowledge of the same only when penalty noƟces were physically received”. 4. The First Appellate Authority is not saƟsfied with the explanaƟon offered by the assessee and observed that the reason stated by the assessee does not consƟtute a sufficient cause and accordingly declined to condone the delay. 5. Even this appeal before us is also not filed within the Ɵme and there is a delay of 47 days. A peƟƟon for condonaƟon of delay is filed by staƟng that the assessee has been a Non-Resident Indian residing in U.S.A for over a decade and there is no one to take care of liƟgaƟon in India inasmuch as his father and father-in-law are old aged people and cannot take care of this liƟgaƟon. According to the assessee, the emails sent were stored in the Spam and not in the Inbox and therefore, he could not noƟce the same. According to him, he came to know about the previous noƟces when the penalty noƟces were issued by the Assessing Officer in physical form. 6. A reading of the above, clearly shows that the assessee, being a resident of U.S.A has not entrusted the responsibility to other to represent his appeal in any way in India and the noƟces sent are entered into Spam according him and he has not looked into the same. Though the assessee stated the reason for the delay before the First Appellate Authority, not any reason is aƩributed for the delay before the Tribunal. He simply stated that he came to India on 31/10/2024 but he did not ITA No474 /Viz/2024 Page 3 of 4 state any reason for not filing the appeal within the Ɵme. There is no response for the noƟce issued by the Tribunal through email. 7. Under these circumstances, we are unable to understand how we can secure the presence and diligence on the part of the assessee to proceed with the maƩer on merits. It is always open for the assessee to contend that the emails entered into Spam and he has not seen them. There is no end to this contenƟon. It is for the assessee to make necessary arrangements to receive the noƟce and to proceed with the maƩer pending in India. The reason advanced is also not convincing because the assessee is fully aware of the fact that his father and father- in-law are not in a posiƟon to shoulder the responsibility of this liƟgaƟon. Assessee got the appeal prepared in India, but failed to appoint any one to take care of this liƟgaƟon. We do not find any merits in the contenƟon of the assessee to condone the delay either before us or before the CIT (Appeals) because, non-service of noƟce in this maƩer is solely aƩributable to the conduct of the assessee himself. Since no reason is offered for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, we find it difficult to condone the delay. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 09th January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S. BALAKRISHNAN) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated:09/01/2025 OKK/sps ITA No474 /Viz/2024 Page 4 of 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Moturu Chandra Sekhara Rao, 759, Chateaus Dr. Coppell, Texas-75019. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), O/o. ITO, CR Buildings, MG Road, Vijayawada. 3. Pr.CIT, 4. DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam. 5. GUARD FILE. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam "