Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 354 days, and the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer had also framed the assessment without providing sufficient opportunity.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 354-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasons. It observed that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte, depriving the assessee of a proper opportunity. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh readjudication, ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal. 2. Validity of ex-parte assessment and appellate orders passed without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A), NFAC in appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063566162(1) vide order dated.28.03.2024 for A.Y. 2017-18.
Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Shankar Naskar, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 354 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating sufficient reasons which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 354 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
It was submitted by the ld.AR that the assessee the ld. Assessing Officer has framed the assessment without providing sufficient opportunity.
It was also the submission that the ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte. It was the submission that the assessee may kindly be provided one more opportunity to represent the case before the ld. AO so that the assessee could be able to submit the required details to substantiate its case.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate order ex- parte. A further perusal of the assessment order also clearly shows that the assessee could not submit the details during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the ld. AR during the course of hearing requested for one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. AO. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the ld. AO in the readjudication proceedings.