SATHISHKUMAR HASSHWANTH,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

Sathishkumar Hasshwanth Income Tax Officer, No.53, Mettu Agraharam Street, Ward-1(1), Post Office Road, Salem. Salem, Tamil Nadu-636004 [PAN: ARBPH2510C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri S.Senthil Kumar, Advocate (Erode) by Virtual. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1071249001(1) dated 16.12.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2018-19. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 16.12.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi. 2.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assesse had committed delay of 124 days and for which it had justified grounds. It was stated that there were family disputes as also non- availability of personal auditor to attend to tax matters. The Ld. Counsel submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on its merits and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel has advanced personal assurance to this effect. In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel filed a detailed paperbook. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the order of lower authorities. 3.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse as to why it could not file its appeal in time. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. 4.0 We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assesse and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 124 days in filing of appeal in this case. He will be at liberty to call for any remand report from the Ld. AO if warranted by the facts of the case. The assesse Page - 2 - of 3 shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assesse side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to readjudicate the matter de novo. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.