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 : 2016-17 Balakrishan Balakrishan Mohanty, Mohanty, At At- Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner of of Patasundarpur, Patasundarpur, PO: PO: Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Income Tax, Circle Kakatpur-752108, 752108, Diswt: Diswt: Bhubaneswar Puri PAN/GIR No. No.ACMPM 7348 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by Assessee by : Shri Sujit Kumar Acharya and Swagatika K Acharya and Swagatika Kanhar, Advs Revenue by : Shri Charan Dass, Sr DR DR Date of Hearing : 04/12/20 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04/12/20 024 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 A), NFAC, Delhi dated 12.1.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bhubabneswar 12.1.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bhubabneswar- 2/10216/2018-19 19 for the assessment year 2016-17.
Shri Sujit Kumar Acharya and Swagatika Manhar, Sujit Kumar Acharya and Swagatika Manhar, ld ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue.
The appeal is time barred by 226 days. The assessed has filed The appeal is time barred by 226 days. The assessed has filed The appeal is time barred by 226 days. The assessed has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit condonation petition supported with affidavit stating the reasons that stating the reasons that P a g e 1 | 4 because of medical illness of the appellant, who is 73 years age, the appeal could not be filed in due time and the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional and beyond the control of the assessee. After considering the petition and hearing the parties, we are of the view that the reasons given are plausible and are not found to be false. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 226 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication.
It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and as such the order is on gross violation of principles of natural justice. It was the submission that the assessment order has been passed exparte as the assessee has failed to make compliance to the notices issued to him through portal. It was his prayer that one more opportunity be provided to the assessee to represent his case with all necessary documents and evidence before the Assessing Officer and accordingly prayed for restoration of the appeal.
In reply, ld Sr DR opposed the prayer of ld AR of the assessee and submitted that sufficient opportunities have been provided by the AO and ld CIT(A) but the assessee has not bothered to comply the same.
We have considered the rival submissions. It is noticed that none represented before the AO despite giving various notices through email.
P a g e 2 | 4 Therefore, the AO was compelled to make the assessment on the basis of materials available on record. A perusal of the order of ld CIT(A) clearly shows that five notices have been issued to the assessee but there was no compliance. Hence, the ld CIT (A) has simply confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer without going into the merits of the case. Now before us, ld AR prayed for restoration of the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer and undertakes in the Bar to cooperate in the set aside proceedings with all the documents and evidence to substantiate his case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee subject to cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in to be deposited within 60 days from the date of this order under the head “others” in ITNS challan 280 in the Account No.500 and same is to be filed before the ld AO. In the event the cost is not paid, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and that of the AO would stand confirmed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 04/12/2024.
Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 04/12/2024 P a g e 3 | 4 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Balakrishan Mohanty, At- Patasundarpur, PO: Kakatpur-752108, Diswt: Puri 2. The respondent: Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, CUTTACK
P a g e 4 | 4