Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE- & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Nagesh Kumar Pathak, Versus Income-tax Officer, 1599, Vashishth Niwas, Ward 1(3)(2), Haridwar. Govindpuri, Haridwar. PAN: AKPPP8757Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Revenue by : Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 23.06.2023 Date of pronouncement: 23.06.2023 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 12.03.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Dehradun pertaining to assessment year 2014-15.
At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 255 days in filing the appeal. Drawing our attention to affidavit filed by the assessee, learned counsel submitted that the counsel who was entrusted to look after the hearing of appeal, did not take proper steps. As a result of which, appeal was decided ex parte. He submitted, even, the assessee was not informed about the status of the appeal filed before the first appellate authority. Thus, he submitted, since, the assessee was kept blindly at dark, proper steps could not be taken for filing the appeal in time before the Tribunal. Thus, he requested for condoning the delay.
Having heard the parties on the issue of condonation of delay, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
In so far as the merits of the appeal is concerned, the basic grievance of the assessee is with regard to ex parte disposal of the appeal by learned first Appellate Authority. Thus, he submitted, the issues may be restored back to the first appellate authority enabling the assessee to contest the additions made by the Assessing Officer with proper submissions and supporting evidences.
Learned Departmental Representative did not express any objection against restoration of issues to the first appellate authority.
Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record, we are of the view that due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee was prevented from properly representing his case before learned first appellate authority. As a result of which, the appeal was decided ex parte upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, in the interest of fair play and justice, we are inclined to set aside order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter back to his file for de novo adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.