ULAHANNAN MUDAKKALAYIL LEELA,KEEZHILLAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, ALUVA, ALUVA

ITA 36/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ulahannan Mudakkalayil Leela, a senior citizen engaged in the business of stamp vending, who faced an assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward-2 Aluva reopened her case due to unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,36,09,500 in her savings account, which she failed to report initially. After the assessment order was issued, there was a significant delay in filing an appeal due to alleged non-receipt of the order, leading to a 651-day delay. The CIT(A) dismissed her appeal without condoning the delay, prompting her to appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found merit in her explanation regarding the communication gap and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the case, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668806 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYA RAVINDRAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"ITA No.36/Coch/2025 UlahannanMudakkalayilLeela, Ernakulam IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.36/Coch/2025 AssessmentYear:2016-17 UlahannanMudakkalayilLeela VI/392, Nadukurishingal House Keezhillam PO Ernakulam 683 541 Kerala PAN NO : AEJPL7834G Vs. ITO Ward-2 Aluva APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Divya Ravindran, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 13.11.2024 23.10.2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070325763(1) and relates to the AY 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is a senior citizen and carrying on the business of stamp vendors. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee could not file any return of income. Thereafter, on the basis of some information revealed that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.1,36,09,500/- in her savings bank account. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). In ITA No.36/Coch/2025 UlahannanMudakkalayilLeela, Ernakulam Page 2 of 3 response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed her return for the first time on 4.3.2022 declaring an income of Rs.3,37,130/-. Thereafter, the AO issued various notices to the assessee. However, the assessee could not appear and finally the AO framed the assessment u/s 144B of the Act adding the entire cash deposit as unexplained credits u/s 69A of the Act and framed the assessment. The assessment order is dated 26.3.2022. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 5.2.2024, meaning thereby there was a delay of 651 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Explaining the cause of delay, the assessee explained that the assessment order had not been served upon the assessee in time. It is also explained that the contact details as emerging in the web site of the department not belong to assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) treating the explanation of the assessee as non-sufficient, dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay. 3. Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee come up in appeal before us and contended that there was communication gap between the department and the assessee in as much as the order of assessment was not served at the address of the assessee. 4. Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of authorities below. 5. After considering rival submissions, we observe that before ld. CIT(A) it has been explained by the assessee that the contact details provided at the income tax web site did not belong to assessee. It is further seen that the assessee has duly filed the return of income immediately after the receipt of the notice u/s 148 of the Act, which was served upon the assessee via post and hence in response this fact shows that the explanation of the assessee is bonafide and she was vigilant in pursuing the tax matters. Ld. D.R. could not be able ITA No.36/Coch/2025 UlahannanMudakkalayilLeela, Ernakulam Page 3 of 3 to refute the submissions of the assessee vis-à-vis service of assessment order at the correct address of the assessee. Considering the facts of the case and the age of the assessee, we are of the view that heavens will not fall if one more opportunity could be given to the assessee, who is a senior citizen.Therefore, we restore this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits after condoning the delay of 651 days for filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, that ld. CIT(A) will grant meaningful opportunity to the assessee before passing any order. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Jun, 2025 Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Accountant Member Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) JudicialMember Bangalore, Dated 23rd Jun, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Cochin. "