BPO SOLUTIONS & SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO M/S. FORUM REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 8(2),, KOLKATA

The appeal is time barred by 495 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee. However, the Director on behalf of the assessee-company filed a condonation petition as well as an affidavit dated 8th July, 2025 in support of condonation of delay saying that M/s. Priyanka Hamirwasia, Accountant of the assessee-company, who was looking after the taxation matters, had met with an accident and had fractured her foot and completed bed ridden for a long period of time and as a result, notice as well as the impugned appellate order dated 11/12/2023 passed under section 250 of the Act was overlooked and went unattended. Thereafter when the management of the company was informed by the office of jurisdictional Assessing Officer that, it logged into the e-portal of the company to check the status of the pending appeals, and was made aware that the appellate order had been passed for AY 2012-13. The management of the assessee company approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 495 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he requested before the Bench to condone the delay.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of 495 days. Hence the delay is condoned.

The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into the merit of the case. He further submitted that the accountant of the assessee-company was bed-ridden for a long period of time due to accident, who was solely looking after the taxation matter of the company, and was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals) as he mentioned in the form of affidavit. Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). In response, nothing has been heard from the appellant except one adjournment letter dated 02.05.2023. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the appellant to justify its claims. Thus, it appears that the appellant is not interest in proceedings with the appeal filed. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The Director of the assessee-company filed an affidavit mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, we are of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/08/2026.