NITUSHREE PATRA,PANIAPADA vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2, CUTTACK

Shri P.K.Mishra P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri , ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

The appeal is time barred by 144 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 9.6.2023 supported by an affidavit alongwith medical prescription for condoning the delay. It is stated that though the order of the ld CIT(A) is 17.11.2022 but there was no physical service of the order to the assessee. It is stated that the assessee being a lady was suffering from diabetic related neuro problem and also under treatment from 5.12.2022 to 25.5.2023. When the assessee gets partial relief and started to recover from the illness, she could know that the passing of the order of the ld CIT(A) on 8.6.2023. Thereafter, she contacted her counsel to prepare the appeal. It was in backdrop that the appeal was delayed by 144 days. It is stated that the delay be condoned. Ld Sr DR has no objection to the prayer of the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay of 144 days in filing the appeal and decide to hear the appeal on merits.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without giving an opportunity to the assessee, which is gross violation of natural justice. He submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not also passed the order on merits. He prayed that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee would assist the ld CIT(A) in disposal of the appeal.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that several opportunities have been provided by the ld CIT(A) as is evident from the impugned order. Hence, no purpose would be served if the matter is restored to the file of the ld CIT(A). He submitted that before the Assessing Officer also, the assessee P a g e 2 | 4 did not respond to the notices, therefore, the assessment order has been passed exparte u/s.144 of the Act.

We have heard the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee exparte as the assessee failed to appear before him without considering the issue on merits. We also observe that the Assessing Officer has passed order u/s.144 of the Act. Before us, ld AR has prayed that one more opportunity be granted to substantiate its case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the CIT (A) and restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to pass a fresh assessment order after allowing proper opportunity to the assessee in accordance with law.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.