TARUN SAHU,BIRBHUM vs. COMPETANT AUTHORITY, NAFAC,, DELHI

Shri Sumit Ghosh, Advocate & Shri Souradeep Majumdar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted by the Ld. AR in the appeal of the assessee in the quantum proceedings in Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 994 days. It was the submission that in regard to the penalty u/s 270 of the Act, which is an appeal against the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 862 days. It was the submission that if the COVID period is excluded, then the delay of nearly 300 days would have been excluded and for the balance period of delay, the assessee was hospitalised and was under the medical treatment for which the assessee has filed necessary medical certificates and the hospitalisation record. It was the prayer that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and the issue is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

In reply, the Ld. CIT, DR contended that the assessee has not cooperated in the assessment proceeding. However, in the interest of justice the issues may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re- adjudication.

We have heard the rival submissions. Admittedly, as mentioned by the Ld. Sr. DR, the assessee has not appeared before the Assessing Officer and provided all the details as sought by the Assessing Officer. This being so in both the appeals being the quantum appeal and the penalty proceeding, in the interest of justice the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is condoned and the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.