IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No.907/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18)

(Physical Hearing)

Pravinbhai Vallabhbhai Kakadiya – HUF, Vs. The ITO, M-43, Ratnaprabha Co-op. Housing Ward – 2(3)(3), Society, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat - 395007 Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AANHP0960R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement 10/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 14.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.1,26,08,851/- on account of cash deposit and credit entries remain unexplained treated as alleged unexplained, money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271 AAC of the LT. Act, 1961.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levy interest u/s.234A/234B/234C/234D of the I.T. Act, 1961.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO.

5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.

6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.”

3. The appeal filed by assessee is late by 131 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) filed an affidavit of the assessee where it is submitted that all notices during assessment proceedings were issued on the e-mail Id hiraniag@gmail.com, which was created by the old consultant for filing return of income. The said e- mail Id was not used for any correspondence. Since assessee was not aware about online Income-tax proceedings, he did not receive notices during assessment proceedings. Therefore, no reply should be given and ex parte order u/s 144 of the Act was passed, which was uploaded in the e-filing portal and e-mail Id of hiraniag@gmail.com. Thereafter, Government of India announced lock-down and restrictions were applied. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also excluded the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020. It was also submitted that the new consultant had put e-mail ID hah1110@rediff.com for communication before CIT(A) but the notices were issued on the old e-mail Id. Therefore, notices were not received and the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order. Thereafter, when the appellant came to know about order of CIT(A), steps were taken to file appeal before ITAT, which was delayed by 131 days. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and it was due to circumstances beyond control of the assessee. He requested that in the interest of justice, the matter may be set aside an