Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Prasanna Kumar Roy HUF, filed a return of income, but the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) by disallowing agricultural income and related expenses. The assessee's subsequent appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance. The present appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 194 days, for which a condonation petition was submitted.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 194-day delay, finding the reasons to be genuine and bonafide. It set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This decision ensures that the assessee is provided a proper opportunity to be heard and to present all documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal to the ITAT should be condoned; and whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance, particularly in a faceless assessment environment, warrants a remand for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]
ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:
This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 12.06.2024 for AY 2018-19.
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Prasanna Kumar Roy (HUF) 2. It appears from the report of the registry that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 174 days, for this, the assessee has filed condonation petition which is as under:
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Prasanna Kumar Roy (HUF) On perusal of the condonation petition, the reason for delay in filing the appeal seems to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the condonation petition as well as judicial pronouncement that the case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee.
Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 70,19,480/-. Assessment u/s 143(3) completed by disallowing agricultural income of Rs. 83,75,257/- and agriculture related expenses at Rs. 5,38,856/- by treating the same as unexplained income amounting to Rs. 89,14,113/- .
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed when there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
Upon hearing the submission of the Ld. D.R, we have perused the order of lower authorities and find that there was non-compliance on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of AO when there was non- compliance on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. A.R in his Affidavit (as discussed above) has clearly stated that interest of justice would be served if the order dated 12.06.2024 set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Keeping in view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), considering the submission and for the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass afresh order after affording an opportunity to the assessee to participate in the proceeding and place all documentary evidences..
Order is pronounced in the open court on 3rd July , 2025