KALPNA MUKESH DOSHI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-50(3), NEW DELHI

Since common grievance is involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

The common grievance which needs to be adjudicated relates to the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) without condoning the delay.

We have carefully perused the order of the CIT(A) we find that according to the CIT(A) there was a delay in filing the appeals whereas according to the assessee the appeals were filed within the period of limitation.

However, the CIT(A) was of the firm belief that there was a delay in filing the appeals and the assessee has not sought condonation for delay in filing of appeal hence, the appeal was dismissed.

We are of the considered view that even if there was some confusion in respect of the service of the assessment order between the CIT(A) and the assessee, the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case as the alleged delay is very miniscule.

In the interest of justice and fair play we restore the captioned appeals to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to file affidavit requesting the condonation of delay, if any, and the CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the above captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Decision announced in the open court in the presence of both the representatives on 07.09.2021.