DILIP KARAMAKAR,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

Shri Swanay Mohanty, ld Advocate from the office of Shri Ambica Shri Swanay Mohanty, ld Advocate from the office of Shri Ambica Shri Swanay Mohanty, ld Advocate from the office of Shri Ambica Prasad Mohanty, CA appeared for the assessee and Prasad Mohanty, CA appeared for the assessee and Sri S.C.Mohanty, Sri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue.

The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 30 days. The The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 30 days. The The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 30 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit, stating the has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit, stating the has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit, stating the P a g e 1 | 4 reason for delay in filing the appeal that due to outstation assignment, the dealing counsel for the assessee had assigned the matter to one associate, who fell sick and remained leave till 20th April, 2023. It was in this backdrop that the appeal could not be filed in due time. Ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intention but due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Ld Sr DR opposed the condonation petition.

After hearing both the sides, we are satisfied that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed order exparte without hearing the assessee. ld AR submits that the assessee was not well versed with the electronic gadgets and could not find out the notices issued to him. The notices were allegedly issued only through ITBA portal. Ld AR submits that he undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be vigilant in future and to make proper compliance of the notices and will not default in future for the purpose of service of notices through ITBA portal.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that several opportunities were afforded to the assessee but the assessee did not bother to respond the notices issued by ld CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. The limited grievance of the assessee is against exparte disposal of the appeal by the ld CIT(A). It was the submission by the ld CIT(A) that proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to the assessee in hearing of the appeal. Perusal of the impugned order shows that four opportunities have been granted to the assessee but the assessee has not filed any written submission to explain his contention taken in the grounds of appeal, therefore, the ld CIT(A) had no option but to decide the appeal on the basis of material on record. As the assessee has not furnished any documents in support of the contention, therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to grant an opportunity to the assessee to represent his case before the ld CIT(A). Consequently, we set aside the impugned order of ld CIT(A) and restore the issues back to him for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, we also direct the assessee to cooperate the ld CIT(A) in finalization of the appellate proceedings. With these observations, the appeal is restored back to the file of the ld CIT(A).

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