HARI SADHAN SENAPATI,KESHPUR vs. ITO, WARD 38(4),, MIDNAPORE

The appeals bearing ITA Nos. 2289/KOL/2025 and 2290/KOL/2025 are time barred by 162 days and 223 days respectively in filing the appeals by the assessee before the ITAT. However, the assessee filed a petition before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 162 days and 223 days in the appeals respectively mentioning that due to indisposition and critical ill health, he could not contact his Authorized Representative to file appeals in time as he was a layman and had to depend upon his A.R., who did not convey the message of non-filing of appeals before the Authority inspite of handing over the necessary taxation papers to him and finally he filed appeals with a delay of 162 days (ITA No. 2289/KOL/2025) and 223 days (ITA No. 2290/KOL/2025) from the statutory time limit and due to this reason, the limitation of time for filing of appeals was expired.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeals within the stipulated time before the Tribunal. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 162 days and 223 days in filing the appeals bearing ITA Nos. 2289/KOL/2025 and 2290/KOL/2025 respectively. Hence the delay is condoned.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, I have decided to dispose of the appeals after

At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, it was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that the assessee failed to offer any explanation/supporting documents in respect of the grounds of appeals raised by him before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals). Moreover, the assessee did not comply with the notices of hearing. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the assessee by saying that as the appellant did not bring out any afresh valid explanation with documentary evidence to confront the decision of the ld. Assessing Officer during the appellate proceedings and there is no concrete evidence(s) on record to controvert the decision of the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, ld. D.R. pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of his claim before the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(Appeals) just simply upholding the orders of ld. Assessing Officer dismissed the appeals of the assessee ex-parte without going into merit of the case. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the assessee was not in a position to file some of the evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer. But now he requested to remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to decide the issues afresh and to examine these documents. Therefore, in order to ensure the

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/06/2026.