THE LUDHIANA LIC OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE NON-AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the assessee had filed written submissions, which were taken on record and considered while deciding the appeal. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) was heard and the material available on record was carefully perused.

970-Chd-2025 2 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 08.09.2022. The appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with delay and the assessee had also moved an application seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the same. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the request for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal.

In the written submissions filed before the Tribunal, the assessee has contended that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the request for condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. It has been submitted that the delay occurred due to bona fide reasons and was neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has further submitted that dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds has resulted in denial of proper opportunity to contest the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the assessee prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the findings recorded in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the appellate authority had considered the explanation furnished by the assessee and found the same to be unsatisfactory, and therefore the appeal was rightly dismissed.

We have heard the Ld. DR, considered the written submissions filed by the assessee and carefully perused the material available on record including the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). From the record, it is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee mainly on the ground