VIJAYAKUMAR PRIYADHARSINI,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), ERODE

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee and brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal by not condoning the delay of ‘143’ days in filing of the appeal. In this regard, it was brought to our notice that the assessment order was passed on 23.12.2019 for AY 2017-18, but due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the assessee couldn’t file the appeal and excluding the Covid-19 period only ‘143’ days delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which fact the Ld.CIT(A) has accepted, but has refused to condone the delay of ‘143’ days which fact is discernable from perusal of Page No.22 of the impugned order. The reason for the delay according to the assessee was that she was suffering from terrible spinal cord issues, because of which, she was bedridden and Dr/physician treating her, advised her complete bed rest and therefore, couldn’t neither contact/explain the case to the Ld.AR nor sign the papers & documents, which resulted in the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A). In support of this contention, the assessee is noted to have submitted an affidavit explaining the cause for the delay. Having gone through the contents of the Affidavit and other evidences substantiating the reasons, we are inclined to condone the delay of ‘143’ days in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) [excluding Covid-19 pandemic period]. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and Vijayakumar Priyadharsini :: 3 ::

अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. थ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF