AKHILESH SINGH,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 13(4), KOLKATA

In the present appeal, the assessee has agitated that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.37,28,280/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.69A of the Act by dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of delay without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC u/s. 250 of the Act was without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and as such the order is bereft of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. It was also submitted by the ld. Counsel that without considering the reasons for delay stated by the assessee the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed the appeal on account of delay.

2 ITANo.2216/KOL/2024 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunities but the assessee failed to explain the reasons for condoning the delay. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee and pleaded to uphold the orders of the authorities below.

After hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, I find that instant impugned order passed by ld. CIT(A), NFAC was dismissed on account of delay in absence of any supporting document. A perusal of the impugned order at para 2, shows that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that the assessee could not provide documentary evidence for condonation of delay of 730 days even after repeated opportunities granted to him. During the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the affidavit filed by the assessee stating the reasons for condonation of delay, the contents of which are as under :-