What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the 96-day delay, finding the assessee's reasons for delay to be sufficient and genuine. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The assessee failed to appear before the AO and the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 96-day delay without condoning it or deciding on merits. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was heard ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and deciding on merits, and if the delay was sufficiently explained.

Kamal Kishor Singh, Khagariya vs ITO | ITAT Patna 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH: PATNA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy,Vice-&Shri Rajesh Kumar]

(PAN: BHYPS 2016 L) ( अपीलाथ� ) Respondent / (��यथ�) Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 02.12.2024 क� �त�थ Date of Pronouncement/ 30.12.2024 आदेश उ�घोषणा क� �त�थ For the Assessee / None �नधा�रती क� ओर से For the Revenue / राज�व Shri Ashok Kumar, CIT क� ओर से ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.12.2023 for the AY 2017-18.

At the outset, we find neither the assessee nor his AR appeared to attend the hearing despite services of notices on the assessee and therefore, we decide this appeal on the facts available before us after hearing the Ld. D.R .

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kamal Kishore Singh 3. We note that the assessment in this case was framed by the AO ex-parte when the assessee failed to appear on the various dates allowed by the AO. Similarly before the Ld. CIT(A) there was no representation and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in liminie by not condoning the delay because according to the Ld. CIT(A) there was no sufficient and bonafide reasons for the same. In other words, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal without deciding the issues on merits.

Having considered the facts of the case and hearing the ld DR , we are of the view that the ends of justice could be well served if the assessee is given one more opportunity of hearing to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) as ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in disregard to provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which mandates that the ld CIT(A) shall state the point for determination, his decision thereon and reasons for taking such decision. So far as the delay of 96 days is concerned, we have perused the condonation petition filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and observed that the assessee has duly explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority which we find to be sufficient, genuine and Bonafide. Accordingly we condone the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee to furnish the evidences.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 31st December, 2024

Sd/- Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy /दु�वु� आर. एल. रे�डी) (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) Vice-President/उपा�य� Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Dated: 31st December, 2024 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Kamal Kishore Singh, 2, Pramanand Singh, Bourney, Chautham, Khagariya, Bihar-851201 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-1(1), Patna 3. Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. PCIT- , Patna 5. DR, Patna Bench, Patna

KAMAL KISHOR SINGH,KHAGARIYA vs. ITO, WARD1(1),PATNA, PATNA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments