SUREKHA RAJENDRA PATIL,AHMEDNAGAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

It is noticed at the outset during the course of hearing that there is hardly much a need for us to deal with 2 ITA.No.1078/PUN./2023 the relevant factual matrix at length once it has come on record that the CIT(A) has refused to condone 91 days delay in filing of the lower appeal at the assessee’s behest. It is in this factual backdrop that we are of the opinion, more particularly when the Assessing Officer’s corresponding ex-parte assessment dated 21.12.2017 followed by filing of the lower appeal on 21.04.2018; that the impugned delay has arisen because of lack of necessary information to the assessee regarding the afore stated assessment.

The Revenue vehemently argued before us that the assessee had not submitted any justifiable reason for the purpose of condoning the impugned delay. We are of the view that the same hardly carries any merit in light of the clinching fact that there is no material on record which could indicate assessee to be negligent in pursuing it’s statutory remedy before the CIT(A). Be that as it may, hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the concerned litigants right to get the necessary adjudication on merits. We thus condone the impugned delay of 91 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal and restore the assessee’s all remaining grounds back to the CIT(A) for his further necessary

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.