SATYANNARAYANA KONJETI,TANGUTUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ONGOLE

At the outset, we noticed that assessee preferred this appeal with a delay of 33 days. In this connection, he filed an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the delay, and prayed that the delay in filing the appeal was solely due to the unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances surrounding his health. There is no reason as to why this explanation of the assessee cannot be accepted. As a matter of fact, learned DR fairly concedes to condone the delay. Recording the same, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the matter on merits.

It is the submission on behalf of the assessee that the learned CIT(A) disposed-of the appeal ex-parte observing that various notices under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) were issued to the assessee, but the assessee failed to comply with any of such notices nor did the assessee make any written submissions. Learned AR further submitted that the so called notices were issued by the learned CIT(A) to the wrong e-mail ID of the assessee and, therefore, the assessee never received the same.

Learned AR also submitted that even otherwise also the learned CIT(A) could have referred to the facts and dispose-of the matter on merits so as to have effective assistance to the higher appellate fora. He submitted that in the interest of justice, an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to effectively prosecute her appeal, by restoring the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A).

Though the learned DR vehemently opposed the request of the assessee, the fact remains that the learned CIT(A) did not refer to the facts nor did he dispose of the appeal on merits. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not comply with the requirement of Section 250(6) of the Act and cannot be sustained. If the request of the learned AR is granted affording an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute the appeal before the learned CIT(A) by submitting the evidences, the highest that would happen is that a cause could be decided on merits. When the technicalities are pitted against the delivery of substantial justice, the former must give way to the later.

With this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to pass an order in compliance with the provisions under section 250(6) of the Act. We direct the assessee to co-operate with the first appellate authority in getting the matters disposed of on merits without seeking any adjournments and the learned CIT(A) to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. We order accordingly.

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