ASHA AGARWAL L/H OF LATE ARUN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./ A.C.I.T. - 46, , KOLKATA

The appeal is time barred by 66 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, Mrs. Asha Agarwal, wife of Late Arun Agarwal filed a petition as well as an affidavit before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 66 days mentioning that she is fully dependent on tax consultant and the delay occurred due to the fact that she is not very cognizant of the procedures of the law, duly entrusted the tax consultant, but the tax consultant failed to convey her recent communications and developments of the income tax matters and resultantly it was unnoticed and unattended. When she came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), she changed the legal representative and approached another new tax consultant to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and there was no deliberate lapse or negligence on her part. Therefore, she 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 66 days. Hence the delay is condoned. Asha Agarwal (Legal Heir of Late Arun Agarwal)

None appeared on behalf of the Revenue at the time of hearing. Therefore, I have decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee and perusing the material available on record.

At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed the order ex-parte without giving opportunities to the assessee. He, therefore, prayed before the Bench for one more opportunity to substantiate his case afresh before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 6. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the assessee 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. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. It is also evident that the ld. CIT(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. 147 read with section 144B of the Act as the assessee Asha Agarwal (Legal Heir of Late Arun Agarwal) 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. CIT(Appeals) and in order to meet the principle of natural justice, remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(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. CIT(Appeals) failing which the ld. CIT(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. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/11/2025. (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ)