SREEPRIYA MOHANAN SAJI,PARAVUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KOLLAM

ITA 631/COCH/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Smt. Sreepriya Mohanan Saji against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the delay in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the use of a temporary email ID by the assessee's authorized representative, leading to non-receipt of notices and the appellate order. The assessee also cited personal hardships, including mental illness and the death of her husband, as reasons for the delay. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay and allowed the appeal to be heard on its merits, emphasizing the need for effective communication and opportunity for the assessee to present her case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31169 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL; SNR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJAGOPAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 631/Coch/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Sreepriya Mohanan Saji, Kalluvila Kotappuram, Paravur, Kollam, Kerala – 691 301. PAN: ELHPS3025K Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Kollam. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajagopal, CA Revenue by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR Date of Hearing : 19-12-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11-03-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 07/11/2023 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The appeal was filed with a delay of 188 days and the assessee also filed an application to condone the said delay. In the said application, the assessee submitted that while filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) through online, the authorised representative had created a temporary email ID and therefore the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) was not known to the assessee and also the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was also not known to the assessee. Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 631/Coch/2024 Therefore both the hearing notices as well as the appellate order were not noticed by the assessee and therefore the appeal could not be filed intime before this Tribunal. 3. The assessee further submitted that the assessee came to know about the dismissal order of the Ld.CIT(A) only when the officer informed about the penalty notices and asked the assessee to respond to the said notices. At that time only, the assessee came to know that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte and thereafter steps were taken to challenge the said ex- parte order before this Tribunal. Therefore the delay has been occurred and prayed that the said delay may be condoned in order to decide the appeal on merits. The assessee also submitted that she was suffering from mental illness and taking treatment for the past several years and her husband also expired on 10/12/2021 and therefore prayed that the said delay may be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merits otherwise she would be put into great hardship and irreparable loss would be caused to her. 4. We have considered the said submissions made by the assessee and satisfied ourselves that the assessee had valid reasons for not filing the appeal in time and therefore we allow the prayer of condoning the delay and take up the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 27/03/2018. The return was processed and it was selected for limited scrutiny to enquire about the deposit of cash in her bank account on 11/11/2016. The assessee submitted her explanations and also submitted evidences in support of her submission. The AO disbelieved the explanations and rejected the same and treated the cash deposits as undisclosed income u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the AO had not considered the explanations given by her and also the evidences produced by her and therefore prayed to set aside the order of the AO. As seen from the appeal order, the assessee had not filed any written Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 631/Coch/2024 submissions even though the notice of hearing was served on her and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not prosecuted the appeal. 6. Thereafter the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal and submitted that the alleged various notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) were not received by the assessee since the notices were sent to the temporary email ID created by the authorised representative at the time of filing the appeal and prayed to grant one opportunity to address the matter before the Ld.CIT(A). 7. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR drew our attention to the reasons stated in the delay condonation application and about the non-receipt of the notices sent to the temporary email ID created by the authorised representative and prayed to grant an opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). 8. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 9. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 10. In the earlier paragraph, we have accepted the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal in which the assessee had explained the various hearing notices as well as the appeal order were not received by her since the notices were sent to the temporary email ID created for the purpose of filing the appeal on time and condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for hearing on merits. But unfortunately, the Ld.CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order by sending the notices to the temporary email ID and finally ex-parte order was also communicated to the same email ID and therefore she was not provided an effective opportunity to put forth her case before the Ld.CIT(A). We have also found that in form no. 35, the assessee Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 631/Coch/2024 specifically submitted that the notice or communications may not be sent to the email ID noted in it. In spite of that, we understand that the notices were sent to the said email ID which was a temporary email ID and therefore the assessee’s contention seems to be a genuine one. 11. In such circumstances, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). We therefore set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. We also direct the Ld.CIT(A) to send the notices to the email ID mentioned in form 36 and thereafter decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Cochin, Dated, the 11th March, 2025. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cochin "