Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of Addl./JCIT(A)-1 for AY 2015-16, which was delayed by 395 days. The delay occurred because the employee handling tax matters resigned, and the management was unaware of notices. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to the absence of documentary evidence.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 395-day delay, accepting the appeal for hearing. Recognizing the assessee's difficulty in furnishing documents to the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to produce all relevant documents.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and whether the assessee should be given a further opportunity to submit documentary evidence before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY
O R D E R
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM :
The assessee has filed the instant appeal against the order dated 27.03.2024, passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram, for the assessment year 2015-2016.
The appeal of the assessee has been filed belatedly by 395 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein that the person who was looking after the taxation affairs of the assessee company was not keeping well and was not attending the office regularly and ultimately, he tendered his resignation and left the service and the management of the assessee company was not intimated about the receipt of such notices. When it came to the knowledge of the management, immediately the appeal has been filed before the Tribunal having a delay of 395 days. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the delay was not intentional and, therefore, the same may kindly be condoned and appeal of the assessee may kindly be admitted for hearing.
Considering the submissions of the ld.AR and looking to the facts of the case, we condone the delay of 395 days and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
Ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in absence of any documentary evidence filed by the assessee. Accordingly, ld.AR prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to file the relevant documents to substantiate its case before the CIT(A).
On the other hand, ld. Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee was unable to furnish the relevant documents to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, ld.Sr, DR prayed that orders of the authorities below deserve to be upheld.
Upon hearing the submissions of counsel for the respective parties and perusing the facts of the case and submission made by the ld. AR, we find that the ld. CIT(A) in its order at para 4.1.3 the assessee was unable to provide the relevant documentary evidence to prove its case, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has approved the view taken by the ld.AO. However, during the course of hearing, the ld.AR requested for one more opportunity to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in this appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for readjudication afresh on merits after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also