आदेश / ORDER

PERBEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the final order dated 21/12/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14 on the following grounds of appeal:-

“1) General Grounds

2) Specific ground relating to addition of Rs. 10,14,681 on account of unexplained credit card expenditure by the appellant without appreciating the fact that close to 75 percent of the expenditure pertained to expenses of partnership firm Modern Plastic Industries and payment to the credit card company was directly made by the firm, for which complete banking trail is available.

3) Specific ground relating to addition of Rs. 3,24,025 as salary income without considering the deduction of TDS on such income and that the appellant ought to have granted TDS credit of Rs. 2,692 on the same.

4) Alternative ground relating to double taxation OR computation error. Since salary income was already added by the Assessing officer as part of total income, the same was available with the Appellant to make a part of the credit card expenditure. Thus, the maximum amount of addition as unexplained expenditure could be Rs. 6,90,656, being Rs. 10,14,681 less Rs. 3,24,025.”

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The assessee did not file his return of income for year under consideration as he had left India on 16.10.2012 for higher studies (MBA). After completion of his studies, he joined employment in Dubai and became a Non-Resident (NRI). Prior to leaving India, i.e., during April to August 2012, the assessee was employed with Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited and thereafter resigned from service.

2.1. The case of the assessee was selected based on information available in the Non-Filers Monitoring System (NMS) and AIR data. As per the said information, the assessee had allegedly incurred credit card expenditure of ₹10,14,681/- and received salary income of ₹3,24,025/-. Since no return of income was filed, the Ld.AO treated the aforesaid transactions as undisclosed income and initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 27.03.2019.

2.3. In response to notices issued under section 142(1), the assessee, through his authorised representative, attended the proceedings and furnished explanations and details as called for. However, the Ld.AO did not accept the submissions and made addition of ₹13,38,706/- to the total income of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

3. The Ld.CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal as assessee failed to respond to the notices issued.

Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in before the Tribunal.

4. The Ld. AR submitted that all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), including the impugned order, were served on the email ID of the erstwhile tax consultant of the assessee. It was submitted that although the assessee had subsequently engaged another Chartered Accountant, who had duly filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the system continued to use the email ID of the earlier tax consultant for issuance of notices and communication of the appellate order.

4.1. It was further submitted that in Form No. 35, the assessee had duly provided his personal email ID; however, neither the notices nor the impugned order were communicated to the said registered email ID.

4.2. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee, during the year 2020, had also addressed a letter to the Ld.CIT(A) seeking the status of the appeal, but no response was received. It was further submitted that the assessee was unable to access the CPC portal as his Aadhaar was not linked/updated, and therefore remained unaware of the progress of the appellate proceedings. It was only in the year 2025 that the assessee came to know of the demand upon receipt of the communication on the email ID mentioned in Form No. 35.

4.3. In these circumstances, the Ld. AR submitted that there has been a delay of 735