SUJATHA MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(5), BANGALORE
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of Ld.CIT(A) dated
12/09/2023
having
DIN
&
Order
No:
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-
24/1055997839(1) and relates to A.Y. 2012-13. Page 2 of 3
S.P. No. 66/Bang/2024 &
2. There is a delay of 334 days in the present appeal. Explaining the cause of delay Ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that there are two reasons for the delay.
A) The order of the Ld.CIT(A) has not been received via email or via physical post.
B) The person who was handling the taxation matter was not physically well at that point of time.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed a medical certificate of one Ms. R.
Sujatha in support of his contentions.
The Ld. DR strongly opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of the delay in the present appeal.
After considering the rival submissions, we observe that the Ld.DR failed to refute the contention of the assessee with respect to the service of appellate order to the assessee in time. Further, there is a medical certificate issued by UPHC Medical Officer, certified that the assessee was not well from 10/09/2023 to 22/10/2023. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, we hereby condone the delay of 334 days and proceeded to decide the matter.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee craved that one more opportunity may kindly be granted to the assessee for explaining his case before the AO.
The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
Page 3 of 3
S.P. No. 66/Bang/2024 &
8. We observed that in this case, the Ld.CIT(A) has decided the matter ex-parte. It is settled position of law that the Ld.CIT(A) is duty bound to decide the matter on merits as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra reported in 279 CTR 614. Further, it is observed that the assessee in this case is living in a remote area and has not proper legal assistance at that point of time, due to which the assessee has not been able to submit any evidences before the AO and therefore in the interest of justice, we remit this matter back to the file of AO for examining it afresh. We further clarify that in case the assessee could not cooperate with the department in remand proceedings, then no further lenience would be given to the assessee. With these observations, we hereby restore this matter to the file of AO.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th January, 2025. (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU)
Judicial Member
Bangalore,
Dated, the 20th January, 2025. /MS /
Copy to:
1. Appellant
Respondent 3. CIT
DR, ITAT, Bangalore
Guard file
CIT(A)
By order