Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 330 days due to the assessee not being cognizant of legal procedures and issues with their representative. The assessee sought condonation of this delay. The lower appellate authority passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 330 days considering the facts and circumstances and the assessee being prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the lower appellate authority to provide an opportunity for a hearing, remitting the matter back.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex-parte order passed by the lower appellate authority without providing an opportunity to be heard is valid.
Sections Cited
144, 1434
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Seikh Kamaluddin,………………….……...……Appellant Nekarbag Tatarpur, Chandrakona, Paschim Midnapure-721242, West Bengal [PAN:BTWPK5866J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-38(2), Midnapur, Amaravati, 1st Floor, Keranitola, Raja N.L. Khan Road, Paschim Medinipur-721101, West Bengal Appearances by: Shri Promit Majumdar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Addl. Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: November 19, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: November 21, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune dated 08.05.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-2018.
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Seikh Kamaluddin 2. The appeal is time barred by 330 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 16th June, 2025 before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 330 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to the fact that he is not very cognizant of the procedures of the law, duly entrusted a practitioner with the appeal procedures, but the practitioner failed to multiple occasions to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Moreover, he was unaware of such development and engaged with the business over the years and the representative failed to inform of such order. When he came to know about the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), he changed the legal representative due to the inefficiency and approached another ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 330 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and there was no deliberate lapse or negligence on his part. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 330 days. Hence the delay is condoned.
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Seikh Kamaluddin
At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has passed the order ex-parte without giving opportunities to the assessee. He also submitted that even the assessment order has been passed under section 144 of the Act due to non-compliance from the side of the assessee with regard to the show-cause notice. He prayed for one more opportunity to substantiate his case before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals).
At the time of hearing, ld. Sr. Departmental Representative supported the orders of lower authorities.
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that as there was no response to the notices to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences and submissions, ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. It is also evident that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has not discussed the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance. I also find that the assessment order has been passed u/s. 1434 of the Act as the assessee remained non- (A.Y. 2017-2018) Seikh Kamaluddin compliant and failed to produce any evidence or supporting documents in support of the claim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) and in order to meet the principle of natural justice, remit the matter back to the file of the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) failing which the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/11/2025.