UNICORN TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 7(2), KOLKATA

The appeal is time barred by 185 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Though the assessee filed (A.Y. 2012-2013) Unicorn Tradecom Pvt. Limited 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 appeal is also time barred by 50 days before the ITAT in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the Director of the assessee-company filed a condonation petition dated 20th December, 2024 saying that the assessee was not aware of any notices of hearing and the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as the Chartered Accountant and A.R. of the assessee-company failed to check up the internet portal due to heavy work pressure of statutory compliances. When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay. Hence the delay is condoned.

The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-filing of condonation petition before him in (A.Y. 2012-2013) Unicorn Tradecom Pvt. Limited 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 delay occurred due to spread of pandemic of novel coronavirus and following lockdown announced by our Hon’ble Prime Minister in filing of the appeal for the period falling before COVID exempt period. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), but the ld. Addl./JCIT(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. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal ex-parte and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(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 appeal before the ld. Addl./JCIT(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. Addl./JCIT(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 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Unicorn Tradecom Pvt. Limited promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. Addl./JCIT(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