ANGIRA DILIP TENDULKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, WARD 1, PALGHAR , PALGHAR

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 30.09.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A), for the A.Y 2018- 19.

At the very outset, we noticed that appeal of the assessee was rejected by Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that the same was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

After having heard the counsels for both the parties, perusal of material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities, we noticed that before rejecting the appeal, assessee was not provided any opportunity to move an application for seeking condonation of delay. Moreover, assessee has filed affidavit wherein the reasons for seeking condonation before CIT(A) have been duly explained, therefore after considering the same we are convinced that there was “sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within limitation before Ld.CIT(A) . Hence we are inclined to condone the delay of 29 days in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we condone the delay.

Since we have already condoned the delay, therefore, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

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