SANJAY TAKI, ,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 49(1), , KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
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 16th October
2024 passed for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The appeal was time-barred by 68 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Though the assessee
Sanjay Taki has given the valid reason for delay in filing of the appeal within the stipulated period, but ld.
CIT(Appeals) erroneously dismissed the appeal in limine passing ex- parte order. Before the ITAT also, there was a delay of 113
days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed an affidavit dated 21st April, 2025 stating the reason that being non- conversant with the electronic mode of conduct of income tax proceedings by way of introduction of E-assessment
Scheme, 2019 and such failure to comply with the statutory communications, like notices, order etc., the delay was occurred. The assessee was not aware of any notices of hearing and the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 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 113 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 within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 113 days. Hence the delay is condoned.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, I have decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record. Sanjay Taki
At the outset, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well as not submitting any proof to substantiate his claim for condonation of delay. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
I have perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into the merit of the case and for non-filing of condonation of delay before him. From the affidavit, it was noticed that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and was not in a position to appear 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. 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. Sanjay Taki
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/06/2025. (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ)
Kolkata, the 26th day of June, 2025
Copies to :(1) Sanjay Taki,
264, K. Road, Dasnagar, Belgachia,
Howrah-711105, West Bengal
(2) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-49(1), Kolkata,
Income Tax Office,
Uttarapan Complex, DS-IV,
Kolkata-700054, West Bengal
(3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi;
(4) CIT - , Kolkata;
(5) The Departmental Representative;
(6)
Guard FileBy order