ARM MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

There is a delay of 528 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that ‘the auditor and tax advisor of the company resigned in 2022-23

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeal on delay in latches.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present appeal. The Assessee, in the affidavit for condonation of delay, contended that the auditor and tax advisor of the company resigned in 2022-23 adding further problem to the management. Due to loss of business and release of all the employees, the compliance formalities could not be appropriately and timely attended to. Therefore, the Assessee could not file the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 27.12.2019 u/s 144 of the Act by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27.12.2019, Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 16.07.2024, dismissed the first appeal on delay in latches. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 16.07.2024, Assessee filed the captioned appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the order of the A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided on the grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee and the order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law which

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the order of the Assessing Officer as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings. Even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.

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