NAMRATA SHARMA,KHARGHAR vs. ITO WARD 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

From the records, I noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on account of a delay of 158 days. Before me, the assessee explained the reasons for the delay and submitted that sufficient cause prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

Considering the submissions of the assessee and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues involved, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is condoned.

Since I have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), I set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law on merits, after affording the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard.

Therefore, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed upon the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. A copy of the receipt shall be placed on record before the Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the proceedings.

Before parting, I make it clear that my decision to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as reflecting or expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated independently by the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law.

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