SRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PRUSTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue.

A perusal of the appeal records A perusal of the appeal records in the present cas in the present case shows that the first notice has has been issued to the assessee through e through e-mail fixing the hearing on 11.7.2023. As there was no response from the side of the hearing on 11.7.2023. As there was no response from the side of the hearing on 11.7.2023. As there was no response from the side of the P a g e 1 | 3 assessee, the hearing was adjourned to 9.8.2023 with the direction to send physical notice as well as through e-mail to the assessee, which was complied. The assessee has chosen not to appear. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is being disposed of on merits.

A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of delay of 140 days in filing of the appeal before the ld CIT(A). A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) also shows that substantial number of opportunities have been given to the assessee to explain the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld CIT(A). The assessee has chosen not to respond to the notices issued by the ld CIT(A) in regard to delay. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessment order has been passed u/s.144 of the Act as none has represented before the AO also. Thus, the facts clearly show that the assessee has been absolutely non-cooperative in the assessment proceedings. In regard to the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld CIT(A), the assessee has not given any explanation before the ld CIT(A) and also before the ITAT. This being so, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld CIT(A).

It must also be specifically mentioned here that the ld CIT(A) has in para 5.9 of his order admitted that a pragmatic approach can be espoused when the delay is slight. It is unfortunate that even after the liberal approach is taken by the ld CIT(A), the assessee has chosen not to give any P a g e 2 | 3 reason for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A). There is no reason given before the Tribunal for considering the condonation of delay before the ld CIT(A). In these circumstances, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.