REENA ASHUTOSH SINGH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI

Both the appeals are barred by limitation of 292 days. Both the assessees have filed affidavits, explaining the delay and it is stated therein that erstwhile Chartered Accountant did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) and also did not communicate the order passed by him in their hands. It is further submitted that the assessees have appointed a new Chartered Accountant and he advised both the assessees to file appeals before the ITAT challenging the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A). On his advice, these appeals were filed along with condonation petition. Accordingly, it is prayed that the delay in filing these appeals before the ITAT be condoned.

We heard the Ld.DR on this preliminary issue in respect of both the appeals. Having regard to the submissions made by the assessees in their affidavits, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for them in filing these appeals belatedly before the ITAT. Accordingly we condone the delay and admit both the appeals for hearing.

We heard the parties and perused the record.We notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on the reasoning that the assessees did not pursue their appeals. We notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has also not adjudicated the appeals on merits. Accordingly, we are of the view that,interest of natural justice, both the assessees may be provided with one more opportunity to present their cases properly before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in their respective hands and restore all the issues to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessees. We also direct the assessees to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the issues in both the appeals.