TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has erred in passing the above said Order that is had in law conflicting the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5 has erred in passing the above said Order that is bad in law conflicting the principles of natural justice. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing the relief U/s 90 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 amounting to Rs. 7,04,594/-. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in mentioning the claim of relief U/s 54 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 that was not claimed by the Appellant at all. 5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing the deductions claimed under Chapter VIA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,10,977/-. The addition as made being erroneous is to be deleted. 6. In any case, the learned assessing officer has erred in concluding the assessment u/s 144 of the Act holding that none of the notices issued were complied by the appellant. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and the law applicable, none of the notices were served on the appellant, the action of assessing officer in concluding the assessment exparte being erroneous is to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... factually incorrect. 15. On 2nd March 2018, CA Chikkerur submitted an online grievance through e-filing portal, requesting a meeting with the concerned officer and seeking an opportunity to submit the supporting documents. Thereafter, on 31st March 2018, the Appellant was informed that response is received directing to approach Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5 for rectification of the error, a corrective and revised order would be issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5. 16. On 19th June 2018, another grievance was submitted. stating that CA Chikkerur, had approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5 but was not permitted to submit hard copies of supporting documents. Consequently, he emailed all relevant documents to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5 based on the response received from Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. 17. On 26th September 2022, CA Chikkerur. submitted another grievance, highlighting that an order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 1961, was passed without affording the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the Appellant had consistently maintained that he was not guilty of any wrongdoing a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r: - AFFIDAVIT I. Vikram Shetty S/o Sheshachala Shetty aged about 46 years, residing at Unit 2. 17 Peterson Street. Highett. Victoria Australia - 3190 hereby solemnly affirms and state that the contents of this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge information and belief as follows: 1. I have been filing my Income Tax Return (ITR) from the AY 2002-2003 onwards. My jurisdictional Assessing Officer was Income Tax Officer. Ward 5(3)(1). However. due to change in my residential status. my case now falls under the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle 2(1). International Taxation. Bengaluru. as I have been working in Australia since 29th May 2014. 2. On Ist April 2016. I received Assessment Order U/s 144 from the Income Tax Officer. Ward 5(3 )( 1). Bangalore stating as follows: There was no response to the notices issued to the assessee. A letter dated 16-01- 2016 was issued to the assessee calling for the hearing on 25-01-2016 through e-mail. Another letter dated 27-02-2016, posting the case for hearing on 03-03-2016 as a final opportunity and show cause notice was issued to the assessee. An e-mail was al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tunity to submit the supporting documents. Thereafter. on 31st March 2018. I was informed that response is received directing to approach Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5 for rectification of the error. a corrective and revised order would be issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5. 11. On 19th June 2018. another grievance was submitted. stating that CA Chikkerur. had approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5 but was not permitted to submit hard copies of supporting documents. Consequently. he emailed all relevant documents to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5 based on the response received from Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. 12. On 26th September 2022. CA Chikkerur. submitted another grievance. highlighting that an order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. was passed without affording me a reasonable opportunity of being heard and I had consistently maintained that I was not guilty of any wrongdoing and had not availed of any incorrect sections. thereby disputing liability for demand and penalties 13. On 17th May 2023. the response was given for the aforesaid date stating that the Jurisdiction falls under Income T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ausing delay of 2390 days. The facts clearly show that at the time of filing of return of income for that year, assessee has claimed relief u/s. 90 of Rs. 7,04,594/- and deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs. 1,10,977/- in the return of income filed on 31.7.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 43,24,130/-. Assessee is working in Australia sine 29.5.2014. Therefore the return of income which was picked for scrutiny resulted into an ex parte assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act as assessee could not participate in assessment proceedings. However, the claim of the assessee is that he did not receive any notices. It is also his claim that being a non-resident, unfamiliar with Indian tax laws, assessee has authorised his CA to respond to the income tax department. However as the ex parte assessment order was received, the CA filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The notice of hearing on 22.12.2017 was received by the assessee on 3.1.2018, therefore could not be responded to. On the same date, another notice was issued fixing the date of hearing for 25.1.2018. But due to Karnataka Bandh, assessee requested reschedulement of the date as per the email dated 23.1.2018, but suddenly on 28.2.2018 the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt cause it is the discretion of the ITAT to allow or dismiss the application for condonation of delay. This decision is required to be based on the bonafides of the assessee. The discretion will also not be exercised when the delay is caused by negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides. In such cases, even if harshly the facts cause inconvenience to the assessee, it has to be applied with all its rigours. Even equity has no place in condoning the delay. Further the concept of liberal approach or justice oriented approach of substantial justice cannot be employed to overwrite the substantial law of limitation. The discretion has to be exercised in an enough manner to allow the application for condonation. Even the merits of the case are irrelevant. Thus, the Tribunal is empowered to exercise the discretion to condone if and only if the delay is for sufficient cause and not because of negligence or want of due diligence. Therefore in deciding above condonation of delay petition, it is required to be seen whether there exists a sufficient cause and the assessee was diligent about his right or not. Honourable Supreme Court in above decision has laid down following principles for condo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not rejected. Subsequently when the assessee was approached for demand, another grievance was raised which was responded to on 17.5.2023. Thereafter there was a change in the consultant and assessee approached by filing an application u/s. 119(2b) of the Act which was rejected on 23.7.2024. The assessee approached the CA, who advised him to file an appeal and based on his advise, the appeal came to be filed before the ITAT. 13. It has to be noted that the assessee is a non-resident, residing in Australia. Naturally he was not aware and was solely dependent on the consultant, who in fact took several decisions by knocking the doors of various authorities such as the CIT(Appeals), grievance application, the AO, may be the door is wrong, but the efforts of the assessee cannot be said to be lacking in his bonafides. It is also startling that despite knocking so many doors by the assessee of several income tax authorities, none of them advised him to file an appeal before ITAT, but everybody gave his own reason to not address the grievance of the assessee. Even the CIT(Appeals), the AO, who were considered to be well-versed with the law at least should have given one line in their resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ul the assessment by giving the detailed reason. He cannot short-circuit the appeal of the assessee and dismiss it for want of prosecution. Even this allegation of the ld. CIT(A) also does not hold water for the reason that all the notices issued by him were responded to by the assessee. Thus dismissing appeal of the assessee by the ld. CIT (A) is not in accordance with the law. 18. Before the ld. AO, the assessment took place in absence of the assessee. The notices might have been issued to the assessee at his Bangalore address, but it is apparent that by that time assessee for employment purpose shifted to Australia. Looking at the Statement of Facts before the CIT(Appeals) as part of Annexure to Form 35, it is apparent that assessee got an email on 1.4.2016 containing the assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act. It is also contended that assessee has not received any other email about the notice of hearing. Further assessee has also not claimed any deduction u/s. 54, therefore the reason for selection of scrutiny is also incorrect. In view of the above facts, the only grievance of the assessee is the grant of foreign tax credit u/s. 90 of the Act of Rs. 7,04,594/-, which wa....