Case Law Details
Geetha Gopalan Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
In Geetha Gopalan vs DCIT, the assessee filed an appeal against the NFAC order dated March 18, 2024, for the assessment year 2018-19. The issue arose when the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple notices being issued. The assessee’s representative, however, explained that the notices were mistakenly sent to an outdated email address of a previous tax consultant. Although the correct email was provided in Form 35 during the appeal filing, the notices were sent to the email used in prior income tax returns. Due to this error, the assessee was unaware of the hearing dates and missed the deadline for filing an appeal with the ITAT, resulting in a 19-day delay.
After reviewing the case, the ITAT found that the delay was caused by an error in the communication process, which was not the assessee’s fault. The Tribunal agreed to condone the 19-day delay, as there was sufficient cause for it. The ITAT remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the proper opportunity for the assessee to participate in the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter will now proceed under fresh consideration by the CIT(A).
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 18/03/2024 vide DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062843516(1) for the assessment year 2018-19.
2. At the outset, we note that there was no appearance before the ld. CIT-A by the assessee despite various notices were issued to the assessee intimating the date of hearing. In the absence of any cooperation from the side of the assessee, the ld. CIT-A confirmed the order passed by the AO. However, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the notices were issued by the ld. CIT-A at the email ID of the old tax consultant whereas the assessee has furnished the new email ID in form 35 while filing the appeal before the ld. CIT-A. As per the ld. AR the notices were issued at the email ID [email protected]. which was furnished in the income tax return, but the email ID furnished in form 35 is [email protected]. Accordingly, the ld. AR contended that the assessee could neither appeared before the ld. CIT-A nor file the appeal against the order of the ld. CIT-A within the stipulated time. As such, it was contended by the ld. AR that the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT for 19 days should be condoned as there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee to file the appeal before the ITAT within the stipulated time and further prayed to set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.
3. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue did not raise any serious objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.
4. After hearing both the sides and considering the materials available on record, We note that there is no fault attributable to the assessee for nonappearance during the proceedings before the ld. CIT-A and delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. Accordingly, we are inclined condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for 19 days as there was sufficient cause was which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time and set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.
Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on 22nd day of August, 2024
Author Bio
