UMESH CHAND,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), BULANDSHAHAR, BULANDSHAHAR

Shri Satyajeet Goel, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that there was 121 days delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee had filed an application before the CIT(A) praying for condonation of delay stating reasons. The ld. Counsel explained that delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority was for the reason that the assessment order was not received by the assessee. He submitted that the email address registered with the Income Tax Department was of an ex-employee i.e. chanderguptgoyal170@gmail.com. Since, Shri Chandergupt Goyal had left employment of the assessee, the assessment order sent to the email address of the assessee’s former employee was never received by the assessee. The ld. Counsel also refers to the affidavit filed by the assessee in this regard to support his contentions.

Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department, opposed the matter being restored back to the AO for fresh assessment. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the impugned order.

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. Considering entire facts of the case, I am satisfied that the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional but was for the reasons stated by the assessee in the affidavit, which appears to be bonafide. Since, the assessment has been made ex-parte, the matter is restored back to the AO for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the AO, without fail.

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