NAHAKPAM BABULIN MEITEI,WANGJING vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, IMPHAL

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 160 days, which is stated to be on account of worst law and order situation in the state of Meghalaya. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and

At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed certain additional evidences under Rule 29, which may be admitted and the issue may be restored to the file of the ld. AO.

The ld. DR on the other hand did not oppose the contention of the assessee.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ends of justice will be well served if the additional evidences are admitted and appeal of the assessee is restored for re-adjudication after taking into account all these evidences. Consequently, we set aside the appeal to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to denovo adjudicate after reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.