Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was barred by 105 days, for which an application for condonation of delay was filed with an affidavit. The assessee's AR submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity to be heard and to produce evidence.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging that the assessee failed to submit evidence, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity by restoring the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is heard.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation, and if not, whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
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), Kolkata-21, dated 23.10.2024 for the Assessment Year 2016-2017.
Shri Tarun Kumar Banerjee, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Pampa Ray, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal of the assessee is barred by 105 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. CIT-DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 105 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee 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 issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidence to substantiate its claim.
In reply, ld CIT-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, being more specifically in last para at page 4 shows that the assessee has failed to submit the evidence to substantiate its claim. This being so, in the interest of justice, I 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 opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) positively.