PURNA CHANDRA SARAB,KANDHAMAL vs. ITO,WARD-1, CUTTACK

Shri A.Mohan Rao, A.Mohan Rao, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has passed the order dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing appeal before him. It was the submission that as the assessee was not aware of the order of the Assessing Officer , the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated date. In this contention, ld AR has filed an affidavit from the authorized person dealing with income tax matter and prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Ld SR DR objected to the request of ld AR of the assessee.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the affidavit filed before us. A perusal of the order of ld CIT(A) shows that as the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence substantiating his claim for delay in filing the appeal, ld CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now before us, ld AR has filed an application supported by affidavit that due to unaware of the assessment order being passed by the Assessing officer, which was sent in email.id of the assessee by the person handling in tax matter, the appeal could not be filed within date and there was a delay of 171 days in filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A). In the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 171 days in filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) and restore the appeal to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.