MADHU KACHHARAM ACHHRA (HUF),ULHASNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN

In the instant case, the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order, in Para No.1 and in the body of the impugned order, has repeated the fact that the Assessee has filed an appeal on dated 27.01.2019 against the Assessment Order dated 21.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. However, at last the same was dismissed by holding that the Assessee had filed the 1st appeal on 27.02.2019, and thus there was a delay of 68 days in filing the same.

Admittedly, there was no delay at all, in filing the 1st appeal, as attributed by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order, which is in fact contrary to the Form No.35 as well as body of the impugned order.

Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say, by affording an reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, that this is an old appeal and substantive time has already been taken by the Ld. Commissioner in deciding the same, but still he dismissed the same in limine, we deem it appropriate and therefore

The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices and file the relevant submissions/documents, which would be essentially required, and shall not cause any undue delay, otherwise, 6 months’ time limit would not be applicable.

In the result Assessee’s appeal is allowed statistical purposes.