JAYANTA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(1),, KOLKATA

At the time of hearing, ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 430 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR further submitted that the delay was on account of the non-receipt of the order of the AO as the order was on the portal and assessee could not receive the same physically. Ld.AR also submitted that the delay was due to change of authorized representative, insofar as the previous AR had died on 23.07.2024 after prolonged illness. Ld.AR further submitted that the files were received by the present AR only on 08.07.2024 and the appeal was filed belatedly on 19.08.2024. Accordingly, ld. AR prayed that the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may kindly be condoned and the appeal of the assessee may kindly be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A), so that the assessee could be able to produce all the details to substantiate his case.

On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submitted that no evidence of change of counsel nor death certificate of the earlier counsel had been produced. It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that the order of the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material evidence on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced any evidence to show that the earlier counsel Shri Ratan Kumar Ghosh was handling the tax matter of the assessee. Further no evidence of the demise of said counsel has also been produced. A perusal of the affidavit of the assessee shows that the assessee is mentioning that he bought smart phone in 2016-2017 for the first time. The appeal is relating to the assessment year 2017-2018. The date of the assessment order is dated 16.05.2023. The affidavit also mentions the demise of the earlier counsel but no evidence of earlier counsel being Ratan Kumar Ghosh has been produced. The assessment order is also ex-parte. Thus, even that the so-called smart phone purchased during the financial year 2016-2017, the assessee has been unable to deal with the notice received in the course of the assessment proceedings and the assessment order is also an ex-parte order. Hence, as the assessee has not been able to provide sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A), I am not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).