Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL
Assessment Year : 2018-19 Nakula Charan Behera, S/O. Nakula Charan Behera, S/O. Vs. ITO, ITO, Bhadrak Bhadrak Ward, Ward, Mukunda Mukunda Charan Charan Behera, Behera, Bhadrak At/PO: At/PO: Kuansh, Kuansh, Dist: Dist: Bhadrak. PAN/GIR No. No.AFDPB 7907 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri , Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR DR Date of Hearing : 11/12/20 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench
This is an This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 23.2.2024 CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 23.2.2024 in Appeal No. in Appeal No. NFAC/2017- 18/10017314 for the for the assessment year 2018-19.
Shri P.K.Mishra P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.
The appeal is time barred by 220 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 220 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 220 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit stating the reasons that as the petition supported by affidavit stating the reasons that as the petition supported by affidavit stating the reasons that as the P a g e 1 | 3 assessee was seriously suffering from hepatitis of liver and pancreas damage and under hospitalization, as a result, the assessee could not take necessary steps in filing the appeal within the due time which cause delay of 220 days. However, when he got medical relief, immediately took necessary steps to file the appeal. Accordingly, it was prayed to condone the delay in filing the appeal. After considering the submissions of both the parties and the condonation petition, we find the reasons stated in the petition plausible and condone the delay of 220 days and admit the appeal for hearing.
It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing sufficient effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as such the appeal order being passed on gross violation of principles of natural justice. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order u/s.144 of the Act as there was no proper compliance before him. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored back to the file of the AO and the assessee undertakes to cooperate in the set aside proceedings. Ld Sr DR seriously objected to the request of ld AR of the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case shows that the ld CIT(A) has given three opportunities of hearing as is evident from the order at page 7. As there was no compliance to the notices, the ld CIT(A) was compelled to confirm the addition made by P a g e 2 | 3 the Assessing Officer. It is also noticed that the assessment has been passed u/s.144 of the Act as there was no response from the side of the assessee. Before us ld AR undertakes that if the issue is restored back, the assessee will cooperate in set aside proceedings. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issue after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.