NOPANY FOUNDATION ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), EXEMPTION, , KOLKATA

Shri Amit Agrawal, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Mrinmay Basak, ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

At outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 247 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating sufficient reasons which are not found to be false and the reasons are plausible. The ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection. Thus, the delay of 247 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to 2 ITANo.963/KOL/2025 the assessee. It was the submission that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an exparte order. It was the prayer that if one more opportunity be provided to the assessee, the assessee would be able to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A).

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

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A), shows that the assessee has not cooperated in the appellate proceedings. However, ld. AR during the course of hearing prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A). In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, I restore the issues in this appeal to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in the readjudication proceedings, positively.