TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings and the decision shall apply to both cases mutatis-mutandis. 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order u/s 144 of the Act, the assessee's total income exigible to tax was computed and assessed at Rs. 99,45,430/-. Income as per return was NIL. Addition of Rs. 99,45,428/- was made. That the aforesaid assessment order is dated 04.12.2017 which is hereinafter referred to as the "impugned assessment order". 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the "impugned assessment order" prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the "impugned order" has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the "impugned order" has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in Form 36 against the "impugned order" which are as under:- "1. That the assessment order u/s 144 dated 04.12.2017 passed by the ld. AO, as well as impugned appellate order dated 20.06.2024 for the AY 2010-11 passed by the NFAC is perverse and bad in law. 2. That the learned NFAC erred in rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant merel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not admitted. 3.2 The Ld. AR interalia contended that assessee was a commercial pilot working with a Nigerian Airlines. That the "impugned assessment order" u/s 144 of the Act was passed on 04.12.2017. The 1st appeal before CIT(A) was filed on 03.07.2023 with a delay of 5 years, 5 months and 28 days. The appeal against the "impugned assessment order" is required to be filed within 30 days of the receipt of order. However the assessee sought condonation of delay in preferring first appeal on ground that the assessee was a commercial pilot and his source of income is salary income which he receives from time to time from various airlines. That the assessee subsequently came to know from Income Tax e-filing portal that an assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act and that there is tax demand against him. The assessee at the material time was working for Nigeria Airlines as a commercial pilot, therefore he neither received the "impugned assessment order" nor was available on income tax e-filing portal as he does not see income tax portal. That later on he applied for a copy of the "impugned assessment order" and then filed 1st appeal before CIT(A). In the whole process ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pect of Appeal application vide acknowledgment No. 347163310030723 for the A.Y.2010-11 U/s 144-Regarding 1. Introduction The Appellant. Jaikrishnan Nair, most respectfully submits as follows: * Appellant's Details: Mr. Nair identifies himself as an individual assessee, a taxpayer liable to pay income tax directly. He further clarifies his profession as a commercial pilot, indicating a potentially mobile lifestyle. * Source of Income: The application explicitly states that Mr. Nair's income originates from salaries received from various airlines. This information is relevant as it might explain potential challenges in receiving tax-related communications. 2. Background and Reasons for Delay * Unawareness of Assessment Order: Mr. Nair explains that he became aware of the assessment order, issued under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only through the Income Tax e-filing portal. This suggests he might not have received the physical copy of the order due to his relocation. * Relocation and Missed Communication: The application elaborates on the reason for missing the order. Mr. Nair explains that he had relo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal was filed on 27.07.2018. At least at this juncture, the assessee could have filed the appeal against the "assessment order" dated 04.12.2017. The Ld. CIT(A) in the "impugned order" therefore held that it is not a fit case to condone the delay of nearly 2037 days. The assessee reasons are false for the purpose of condonation of delay. U/s 249(2) and (3) there is no sufficient reason to condone the delay as the cause shown is not sufficient as envisaged u/s 5 of limitation Act. 3.4 The Ld. AR has submitted an affidavit dated 14.06.2025 of one Raju Jayantilal Shah the assessee's earlier counsel (a practicing CA) who has deposed on oath that he was counsel/authorised representative of the assessee in connection with A.Y. 2010-11 and that it was due to his lapses there was delay in preferring even the 1st appeal. He has tendered unconditional and sincere apology for lapses on his part in discharging his professional duties. 3.5 The Ld. AR has also placed on record of this Tribunal emails exchanged between assessee and his earlier counsel. 3.6 Per contra Ld. DR appearing for revenue has not seriously controverted the assertion including affidavit of earlier counsel. The ....