Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed for being time-barred by 115 days. The CIT(Appeals) refused to condone the delay, citing insufficient cause and negligent attitude. The assessee claimed they were unaware of the hearing date.
Held
The Tribunal held that to ensure the principle of natural justice, it was a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for disposal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal dismissed for delay and absence of the assessee from hearing before CIT(A) should be restored for hearing on merits.
Sections Cited
249(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Pravat Ranjan Ghosh,………….…..….………Appellant Room No. 506, Centre Point, 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata-700001 [PAN:AVBPG0666L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...…….Respondent Ward-2(1), Asansol, Aayakar Bhawan, 116, Vivekananda Sarani, Asansol-713341 West Bengal Appearances by: Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, C.A, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: June 24, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: June 26, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 9th September 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2015-16.
(A.Y. 2015-2016) Pravat Ranjan Ghosh 2. The appeal is time barred by 115 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Though the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and prayed to condone the delay. The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal as well as negligent attitude on the part of the appellant.
The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-filing of condonation petition before him in conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act and there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Due to that, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay.
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal ex-parte and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation petition mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the (A.Y. 2015-2016) Pravat Ranjan Ghosh appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to decide the case on merit. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/06/2025.