NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ORISSA,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeals of the assessee on account of delay. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has held that there was a delay of 676 days. It was the submission that the order of the AO was dated 30.12.2019 and the appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) on 05.11.2021. The ld. AR drew our attention to para 15 of Form 35 being the appeal before the ld.CIT(A),

It was the submission that if the period during which the rule in respect of the limitation has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 3 on account of Covid is considered then the actual delay would be only 46 days. It was the submission that the reasons for delay of 46 days is that the staff of the assessee, who was to look after the affairs in respect of taxation matter had been litigating against the assessee and had also not cooperated in the proceedings and this had caused the delay. It was the submission that this was also the reason why the assessee remained un- represented before the AO also. It was the further submission that such employee had been subsequently terminated after protracted litigation. It was the prayer that the issues in this appeal may be restored to the file of AO after condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

In reply, ld. CIT-DR submitted that the assessee being the premier educational institute for lawyer should have shown due diligence. However, he was fair enough to submit that just because the employee has caused the problem, the assessee need not be put to hardship and opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent its matter before the AO. 5. We have considered the submissions. Admittedly, the effective delay is only 46 days and the reason or the delay has also been explained by the assessee. The delay has also not been found to be false. Consequently, we are of the view that the delay in filing of both these appeals before the ld. CIT(A) are liable to be condoned and we do so. 6. Under normal circumstances, as the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeals of the assessee on merits, we would restore the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) to pass fresh order on merits. However, in the present 4 case, it is noticed that the assessee has not been represented even at the assessment stage, no purpose would be served by restoring the appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A), especially when voluminous evidence are to be considered. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

Should the assessee fail to cooperate in the assessment proceedings, liberty is granted to the AO to draw adverse inference. Thus, ITA No.122/CTK/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

With regard to appeal of the assessee in , wherein the assessee has agitated the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act, as the issues have been restored in the quantum for readjudication in the assessment stage, the legs in the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act, no more survives and, therefore, the same stands quashed. Liberty is granted to AO to initiate fresh proceedings should the necessity arises. Thus, ITA No.123/CTK/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 14/05/2024.