RAKESH JAIN,BENGALURU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAX, WARD-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 1700/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Rakesh Jain, a non-resident Indian and senior citizen, who appealed against the dismissal of his earlier appeal by the CIT(Appeals), Bengaluru. The original assessment for the year 2016-17 included an addition of Rs.17,99,000 as income from house property, which the assessee contested. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay in filing, attributing it to the assessee's failure to update his email address. The Tribunal, however, found that the delay was caused by the department's failure to recognize the assessee's updated contact information, leading to the decision to allow the appeal for statistical purposes and remand the case back to the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781213 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B.R.SUDHEENDRA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Additional evidence
• Section: 144; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.1700/Bang/2025 Assessment year : 2016-17 Shri Rakesh Jain, 7935, Saguenay Avenue, Brossard, Quebee, Canada – J4X1K6. PAN: ATHPJ 0304Q Vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward 1(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri B.R. Sudheendra, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Revenue Date of hearing : 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 O R D E R 1. This appeal is filed by Shri Rakesh Jain (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2016-17 against the appellate order passed by the CIT(Appeals), Bengaluru-12 [ld. CIT(A)] dated 11.6.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 20.12.2018 by the ACIT, Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru [ld. AO] was dismissed as there was a delay of 1695 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1700/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 6 assessee could not show that it was for sufficient cause. Therefore the request for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal was not acceded to and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as unadmitted. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and in appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income on 17.9.2016 at a taxable income of Rs.32,74,340. The case was selected for scrutiny and necessary notices were issued. The assessee did not respond to the multiple notices and therefore show cause notice was issued to the assessee. The same was also not responded to and accordingly the assessment order was passed u/s. 144 of the Act. 3. The assessee has shown foreign assets in the nature of immovable property of Rs.1,79,90,000 which is located outside India. The assessee has mentioned the same as self-occupied property. The AO was of the view that assessee cannot reside at two place and claim both the properties as self-occupied property and therefore he estimated the income @ 10% and made an addition of Rs.17,99,000 as income from house property. The AO allowed standard deduction u/s. 24 of the Act and computed the total income at Rs.45,76,140 wherein a sum of Rs.12,59,300 is added as income from house property. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 20.12.2018. 4. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was stated that the assessment order was passed on 20.12.2018, but appeal was filed on 11.9.2023 after a delay of 1695 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1700/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 6 days. The assessee submitted that he is a non-resident, senior citizen aged about 75 years, living in Canada since 1974. The assessee was working with CGI Inc. India between 2011 to 2016 on contract basis which was terminated on 15.3.2016. At that time, he had the email address of [e-mail]. As soon as his contract was terminated, he did not have access to the above email. Therefore as the notices are issued on this email, the assessee was unaware of any information about the assessment proceedings. On 20.8.2022, the assessee received an email from Income Tax Department on his personal email id [e-mail] , at that time he came to know about the outstanding demand. After that he consulted the CA in the end of 2022 and subsequently on the advise of his CA, appeal was filed on 11.9.2023. This has caused the delay of 1695 days. In Form 35 also, in the statement of facts, the assessee has furnished all these details about when he left India. The ld. CIT(A) did not condone the above delay stating that it is the responsibility of the assessee to keep updated the efiling portal such as reporting of new e-mail address. Therefore assessee cannot point fingers on the AO or the CA and he himself is at fault in not updating the email address. It was held that the delay of 1695 days cannot be condoned, as the assessee did not furnish the delay day by day. It was further held that the explanation of the assessee is general and hence the delay of the assessee was not condoned and appeal dismissed by order dated 11.6.2025. 5. Assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1700/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 6 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 in the form of a paperbook containing pages 115 to 127. These details are in the form of the fact that assessee did intimate about the change in the email id at the income tax portal somewhere in the month of Sept. 2025 and therefore as soon as the assessee came to know about the outstanding liability, he immediately corrected the details at ITBA portal. He submits that even the email dated 27.8.2013 also shows that the income tax department was aware about the email id of the assessee, therefore it cannot be said that the income tax department was not aware about the personal email id of the assessee. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay of 1695 days for not filing the appeal in time against the assessment order which was served on inactive email id is not correct. 6. The ld. DR on the basis of evidences agreed that for AY 2012-13 on 27.8.2013 the department is aware about the personal email id of the assessee and there is reasonable and sufficient cause if the order is served on inactive email id. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and find that the assessment order was passed on 20.12.2018, but the appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) on 11.9.2023. It is the claim of the assessee that the assessment order was sent on the email address at [e-mail] which got terminated as soon as the contract of the assessee got terminated in 2016. It is true that the ITR for 2016-17 was filed mentioning the above email id. However, on the portal his primary email id was [e-mail]. He could not have access Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1700/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 6 to his old email id [e-mail] on account of termination of his contract. As soon as the assessee came to know of an email from the income tax department on 20.8.2022 on his personal email id, the assessee came to know about the assessment order. As the assessee is a very old person, residing in Canada since 1974 and also having a house property there, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient cause in filing the appeal late by 1695 days. Accordingly I hold that the ld. CIT(A) is not correct in not condoning the delay and deciding the issue on the merits of the case. It is also not required to establish the delay of each day. It is also not correct that assessee is negligent. It is also not the case that when the primary email id of assessee is available with the department, why the orders were issued on inactive email id. It was not known to me that the order so issued on inactive email id was received by the assessee and has not bounced back. Thus, I find that the ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and admitted the appeal of the assessee to be decided on the merits of the case. 8. I also find that even before the ld. AO the assessee could not furnish the details and has categorically stated before me that the assessee is only having one property which was acquired by him in 2013 in Canada. Therefore, I do not know wherefrom the ld. AO has come to know that assessee has two house properties and both are self- occupied. Thus, there is a contradiction in the statement of the AO itself. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1700/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 6 9. In view of the above facts, I restore the whole matter back to the ld. AO to decide the issue afresh by issuing notice to the assessee on the primary email address, assessee is also directed to furnish necessary details, thereafter issue may be decided afresh on merits. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 23rd day of October, 2025. Sd/- ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 23rd October, 2025. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "