What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to the assessee by not admitting the appeal. The Tribunal agreed to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 111 days, citing illness as the reason. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay due to lack of documentary evidence supporting the illness claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Whether the assessee was denied a fair chance to present their case.

Santosh Kumar Singh vs ITO | ITAT Patna 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH” PATNA

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Santosh Kumar Singh, Village Abdulh Chak, P.O- Bariya Gulzarbagh, Sampatchak, Patna - 80007 [PAN: CWAPS7865K] .....................…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(5), Patna, Bihar - 800001 ..............…..…..................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Prasoon Kr., Adv. Department represented by : Sh. Ajay Kr. Shukla JCIT (Sr. DR) Date of concluding the hearing : 18.12.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 19.12.2024

ORDER PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 19.01.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for Assessment Year 2013-14. 1.1 In this case, right at the outset, the Ld. AR pointed out that a delay of 111 days in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not condoned, even though it was prayed that due to illness, the assessee could not file the appeal in time. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the said delay Santosh Kumar Singh on the basis of reasons recorded in para 5.9 of the impugned order. Briefly, the Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced about the reasons for delay on account of illness, as admittedly, there was no documentary evidence presented before him in support of the claim of illness.

1.2 The Ld. AR prayed for restoring the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO so that the assessee has a fair chance of presenting his case. It has been further mentioned by the Ld. AR that even before the Ld. AO the assessee could not make any meaningful compliance.

We have carefully considered the initial averments of the Ld. Authorised Representative and also perused the records. It is seen that while the Ld. Assessing Officer has passed his order in the absence of any compliance from the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided an opportunity by not admitting the appeal at all. On a query from the Bench, the Ld. DR was agreeable to remanding back of this matter. We accordingly remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment, in the interest of substantive justice. We direct accordingly.

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

Order pronounced in the court on 19.12.2024

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 6(5), 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