Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed 212 days late, with the delay attributed to the assessee not receiving the appellate order and notices. The assessee claimed ignorance of the order until inquiring with their accountant. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 212 days, finding reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity of being heard, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to a reasonable cause, and whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without a reasonable opportunity of being heard is valid.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA’SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ)
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 23.09.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), NFAC/2016-17/10166028 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The appeal is time barred by 212 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit stating that the assessee was unaware of the appellate order being passed by the ld. CIT(A) as the physical
P a g e 1 | 4 Assessment Year: 2017-18 order has not been received. It is stated that only when the assessee enquired about the status of appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) from the accountant then same order and notices were located in the income tax portal. Thereafter, immediately, the assessee contacted the tax advocate and filed the appeal. It is stated that due to this factor, the appeal was delayed. There was no malafide intention in not filing the appeal within the time.
I have gone through the averments made in the affidavit and thus, I am of the opinion that the assessee is prevented in filing the appeal belatedly and the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Consequently, I condone the delay of 212 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit.
3. At the time of hearing, ld AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. He also submitted that the assessment order has been passed u/s.147/144 of the Act due to non-compliance from the side of the assessee. He requested to remit the matter back to the file of the AO. On the other hand, ld. Sr DR opposed to the prayer of ld. AR of the assessee.
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld. CTI(A) has given four notices as is evident from the page 7 of the order and there was no response to the notices by the assessee to substantiate the claim with P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year: 2017-18 documentary evidences. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. Before me, ld. AR undertakes that the assessee will cooperate the proceedings, if the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 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(A) 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 CIT(A) failing which the ld. CIT(A) 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 allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 14/10/2025.