What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 232 days due to the assessee's serious neurological illness. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and whether the matter should be remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

Dillip Kumar Jana, Balasore vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr, Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Hearing: 8/07Pronounced: 8/0

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Kumar Jana, At Dilip Kumar Jana, At-95, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Station Station Bazar, Bazar, Village Village-Mill Balasore Bardi, Bardi, PO/PS: PO/PS: Jaleswar, Jaleswar, Dist: Balasore Dist: Balasore PAN/GIR No PAN/GIR No.AELPJ 0274 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 8/07 7/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 8/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), CIT(A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated dated 18.07.2023 .2023 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10930 CIT(A),Cuttack/10930/2019-20 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2014-15.

Shri P.K.Mishra P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

P a g e 1 | 4

The appeal is delayed by 232 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 3.5.2024 supported by affidavit, stating that even though the order of the ld CIT(A) was received on 19.7.2023 but by during the said time, the assessee was seriously suffered from neurological disease (Micro Vascular complications) of brain, vertigo and legs and had undergone medical treatment for a longer time and was advised complete bed rest. The assessee had no knowledge about passing of this order, as such, he could not file the appeal within the due date. It was in this backdrop that there was delay of 232 days in filing of the present appeal. This contention of the assessee has not been found to be false. Consequently, we condone the delay of 232 days and admit the appeal for hearing.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has passed order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He submitted that the Assessing officer has passed assessment order u/s.144 of the Act. He prayed to remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration of the issues in this appeal.

In reply, ld Sr DR supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has issued several notices, as is evident from the order of the ld CIT(A) at page 3. As the documentary

P a g e 2 | 4 evidences in support of the claim were not furnished and due to non- compliance to the notices, the ld CIT(A) has passed the exparte order. Now, ld AR has undertaken before us that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee would be in a position to file the documentary evidences in support of the claim before the Assessing officer. We also find that the assessment in this case has been passed u/s.144 due to non- representation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issue after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing to the assessee, subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand only) 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. 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 08/07/2024.

DILLIP KUMAR JANA,BALASORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BALASORE, BALASORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments