PARAMJIT SINGH SIDHU,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), CHANDIARH

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.8.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] .

The appeal is time barred by 76 days. A separate application has been moved by the assessee for condonation of delay, wherein, it has been pleaded that the daughter-in-law of the applicant had died -Chd-2019 Shri Paramjit Singh Sidhu, Chandigarh 2 on 4.2.2018. The applicant had to left India on 6.2.2018 and thereafter the applicant came back to India on 31.3.2018 but again left for England on 15.8.2018. Thereafter, he came back to India in the month of December 2018. That the applicant did not get any notice of hearing from the office of the CIT(A). That the impugned order has been passed the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte of the applicant on 21.8.2018 and that during that period the applicant was not present in India. That even the copy of the impugned order was not served upon the applicant. It was only during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2016-17, the Assessing Officer informed that appeal of the applicant had been dismissed by the CIT(A).

Considering the above submissions, which are further corroborated with the copy of the passport of the applicant, it is proved on file that the applicant was not present in India at the time of the passing of the impugned order and further that the copy of the order was not served upon the applicant in time.

In view of the above discussion, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. For identical reasons, the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) is also set aside. At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant–assessee has submitted that even the order of the Assessing -Chd-2019 Shri Paramjit Singh Sidhu, Chandigarh 3 Officer is an ex-parte order. The applicant could not present himself during the assessment proceedings due to the compelling circumstances. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that for the sake of natural justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for assessment afresh.

The Ld. DR could not rebut the above contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. In view of this, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for assessment afresh.