Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Bhagat Singh Vs ITO ( Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 13.02.2024, which had dismissed his appeal as barred by 166 days, arising from assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2014-15.
According to the facts, the appellant did not file his income tax return for AY 2014-15 due to illness. Based on information available in the Actionable Information Monitoring System, the Assessing Officer (AO) determined the appellant’s income at Rs. 34,67,700 by treating cash deposits in the appellant’s savings bank account as unexplained money under Section 69A. The assessment was completed under Sections 144/147 by order dated 16.12.2018. The appellant subsequently filed his return on 27.12.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 9,99,250. His appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was dismissed on 29.03.2023, and the subsequent appeal before the ITAT was dismissed on the ground of delay.
Read SC Judgment in this case: SC Condones 166-Day Income Tax Appeal Delay, Citing Liberal View
The appellant contended that the second appeal before the ITAT had been filed along with an application seeking condonation of the 166-day delay, explaining that notices under Section 250 and the CIT(A)’s order had merely been uploaded on the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) e-filing portal and that he became aware of the order only on 02.11.2023 while checking the portal. It was argued that the faceless appeal scheme required electronic communication with real-time alerts and that merely uploading orders on the portal without such alerts was contrary to the applicable procedure. The appellant relied upon Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, Section 282 of the Act, Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, and Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, contending that the date of receipt should be treated as the date when the communication was downloaded. The appellant also relied on several judicial precedents to support a liberal approach towards condonation of delay and service of electronic notices.
