HARSHEDABEN MANOHAR CHOUHAN,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1), NAGPUR

On hearing both the sides, we find that there is a delay of 606 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and an affidavit has been filed by the assessee wherein she pleaded that assessee is a widow and unable to pursue the matter before the Tax authorities below and it was only her husband, who was handling the tax and financial matters. We find that the issue involved in the impugned assessment order is the alleged sale of immovable property in regard to which the assessee has explained before us that it was inherited property of the husband.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we consider it an appropriate case to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

Further, we find that NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution relaying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. 2 B.N. Bhattacharjee & Another (118 ITR 461), however, the impugned order of NFAC, there is no reflection of mode of service of notices. While in Form 35, assessee had provided email ID and mentioned that notices be not sent by email. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised in this appeal on merits as well as law to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act by giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing. Corresponding ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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