MANOJ SINGH,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), , KOLKATA

Shri Sunil Surana, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shankar Naskar, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee without condoning the delay. It was the submission that the assessee was pursuing alternative remedy by filing rectification application u/s.154 of the Act before the AO and the same has not been disposed off by the ld.AO, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) within the prescribed time limit. It was the submission that during the pendency of the rectification application the assessee opted to file appeals against the 2 intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act before the ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that the delay may kindly be condoned and the assessee may kindly be given one more opportunity to substantiate his case before the ld.CIT(A).

In reply, ld Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on account of delay. A further perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A), shows that the assessee has explained before the ld.CIT(A) with reasons for delay. It is noticed that the assessee has opted alternative remedy in the form of application u/s.154 of the Act and the same has not been disposed off by the Assessing Officer, which is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeals before the ld.CIT(A) is condoned and so as to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case, the issues in this appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication afresh on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.