Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)), which was dismissed ex parte without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. The appeal was filed with a delay of 195 days, for which the assessee sought condonation of delay.
Held
The ITAT condoned the delay of 195 days, finding the reasons plausible and valid. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, warranting restoration for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
ORDER Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2013-14/10274269 dated 28.08.2024.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 195 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The reasons in the application are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.
During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate its claim.
In reply, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the assessee could not make any compliance before the ld. CIT(A). This being so, in the interest of justice, we grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A) by restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate Rahul Springs Pvt. Ltd. opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the re- adjudication proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) positively.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 2nd September, 2025.