KALA DEVI,LALGANJ vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, PATNA

This appeal filed at the instance of the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2017-18 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the “Act”) by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [in short Ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 20.12.2023 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by ACIT, Circle-1, Patna dated 29.12.2019 .

Registry has informed that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 61 days and an application for condonation of delay along with supporting affidavit has been placed in file. The contents of the said affidavit are reproduced as under: “1. That the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has passed order on 20.12.2023 for AY 2017-18 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Patna-1/11171/2019-20. 2. That the deponent has received notice from the A.O. dated 27.02.2024 through Speed Post directing payment of the disputed tax of r.s2.77 crores on or before 05/03/2024 and thereafter, the e-portal was browsed and the deponent has found the impugned order on the e-portal under the tab for your information' and not under the tab 'for your action' 3. That the deponent has not received any message on her registered mobile no. and/or registered email of uploading of the said order on the e- portal. 4. That the order of the CIT(A) dated 20112/2023 came to the knowledge of the deponent only on browsing of e-portal after receipt of notice dated 27/02/2024 for payment of disputed demand of Rs.2.77 crores. 5. That the time line for filing of appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal is 60 days from the receipt of the order, which in the present case is 05/03/2024.”

In view of the above contents of the affidavit, we note that the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause for being able to file the appeal within the statutory time limit and, therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication.

At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee though raised as many as seventeen grounds of appeal but firstly he contended that the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO ex parte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, he prayed before the bench to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. Page 2 of 4