Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
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), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 25.8.2023 in Appeal No. in Appeal No.NFAC/2016- 17/10106076 for the assessment year 2017-18.
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.
The appeal is delayed by 193 The appeal is delayed by 193 days. The assessee has file days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 4.7 condonation petition dated 4.7.2024 supported by affidavit .2024 supported by affidavit and medical
P a g e 1 | 4 certificate, stating that even though the order of the ld CIT(A) was received on 27.8.2023 but by during the said time, the assessee was seriously suffered from Lumbar radiculopathy, which is a never root problem in the lower back, causes symptoms of severe pain or irritation in the back and down the 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 193 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 193 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.144B r.w.s 147 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) in response to notice, the assessee had made submissions. The ld CIT(A) has observed that as the assessee had not furnished substantial evidence in support of the claim of in P a g e 2 | 4 respect of purchase of property, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the disallowance and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Even before the ld CIT(A), the assessee failed to give satisfactory explanation of the investment made in the said property. 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.144B r.w.s 147 of the Act 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.
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.