SUMEET CHAUHAN,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-72(2), NEW DELHI

When the case was called for hearing neither the assessee nor his Authorized Representative appeared nor any adjournment application has been filed. However, on perusal of the relevant appeal record, I find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order qua assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine by observing that the assessee did not have any sufficient cause for explaining the delay appeal filed before him.

On careful and jurisprudence perusal of the First Appellate Order, I find that the appeal can be disposed off in absence of assessee after hearing the arguments of ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue respondent.

The ld. Sr. DR supporting the First Appellate Order submitted that despite the ld. CIT(A) provided due opportunity to explain delay of 28 days in filing appeal before him but the assessee nowhere mentioned reason for delay. Therefore, he was right in dismissing the appeal in limine.

From the impugned First Appellate Order, I observe that the assessee was not provided due opportunity of hearing and to explain the delay of 28 days in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). Therefore, I deem it proper to restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to the first appellate stage with a direction that the assessee should be provide due opportunity of hearing to explain delay of 28 days in filing appeal before him and thereafter take a decision according to the provisions of the Act as well as well accepted principle of tax jurisprudence. Consequently, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose with a direction to the ld. CIT(A) as noted above.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 22/09/2022.