ARM INTERNATIONAL,GUINDY vs. ITO, NCW-19(2), CHENNAI

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 71 days. The assessee filed an affidavit accompanied by a petition explaining the reasons. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bona fide, which

At the outset, it is noted that no compliance whatsoever was made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) in support of the grounds raised in Form No. 35, which is evident from para No. 4.2 of the impugned order.

Ld. AR, Ms. Shilpa Susan Kuriachan, FCA, submits that the Ld. CIT(A), without giving proper opportunity to the assessee, dismissed the appeal without discussing the issues on merits. She submits that the assessee is ready to file evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) and prays to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

Ld. DR, Mr. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT, reported no objection.

Having heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, on perusal of the impugned order at page No. 5, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has given eight opportunities. The first one being on 13.06.2025, intimating the date of hearing on 30.06.2025, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) did not receive any response from the assessee. Further, the last being on 12.01.2026, the Ld. CIT(A) informed the date of hearing on 22.01.2026, wherein no response was received by the first appellate authority. Therefore, considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes