SNEHAL SINHA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), PATNA

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037208777(1) dated 25.11.2021 for A.Y. 2017-18 passed against the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by ITO, Ward- 6(3), Patna dated 14.10.2019.

The Registry has informed that there is a delay of 207 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. In this regard assessee filed a condonation petition stating the reasons for the delay behind filing the appeal before this Tribunal. After perusing the same, we find that the assessee was suffering from cancer and had undergone prolonged medical treatment due to which she could not participate in the income tax proceeding pending before the lower authorities and even could not Snehal Sinha, AY 2017-18 file the instant appeal before this Tribunal within time as prescribed in law and there was a delay of 207 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.

We after considering the prayer of the assessee and going through the various statement stated in the application find that there is sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before this Tribunal. Considering the same, we condone this delay in filing the appeal and have decided the case after hearing both the parties. At the outset, the Ld. AR stated that the assessee was undergone prolonged medical treatment due to detection of cancer and assessee could not participate in the proceeding before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) in proper manner, therefore, both the orders passed by the authorities below were ex parte qua the assessee and she, therefore prayed that assessee may be given one more opportunity so that assessee can represent her case properly before the authorities below.

Ld. DR did not raise any objection to the prayer of the assessee.

After hearing the submissions of both the sides and perusing the material available on record, we find that assessee was undergone prolonged treatment for detection of cancer for which assessee could not take proper steps before the lower authorities. Therefore, we find it proper to remand the whole issue to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to reexamine the same afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to attend diligently before the Ld. AO and not the take any adjournment without just cause.