Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual engaged in trading agricultural instruments, filed an appeal against an order from the CIT(A) which had dismissed his appeal for non-prosecution. Earlier, the AO had made additions for liability and deemed dividend, and the case had been remanded by the ITAT for cross-examination, but the AO re-assessed without relief due to non-compliance by the assessee and parties. The present appeal to the Tribunal was filed with a delay of 195 days, which the assessee sought to condone citing reasons like shifting residence, business collapse, non-receipt of notices, and mental disturbance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the change of residence and non-receipt of notices. It set aside the orders of both the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO, remanding the matter back to the AO to provide a fresh opportunity of being heard to the assessee, ensuring compliance with earlier ITAT directions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to non-receipt of notices; Validity of ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A) for non-prosecution; Remand for fresh adjudication and opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 254, 2(22)(e), 131
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: January 16th, 2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2010-11 dated 31.10.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3)/254 of the Act, dated 28.12.2019.
The registry has noted that the appeal is barred by limitation of time by 195 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 188 days only which is as under:
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. that passing off ex parte appellate order and dismissal of appeal by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is bad in law and unjust.
2. For that both the AO and NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that appellant had suddenly shifted his residence from his registered address in the department database due to the sudden financial collapse of his original business and financial fortune and in quest of livelihood he shifted his entire family to a rented premise of other city of W.B. and closed his original business since the 2013 and there was no one in his registered address to receive the notice. Moreover the mail address belonged to his consultant with whom he had no contact for substantial period due to his shifting of base and appellant just returned to his native city in the last month. Moreover appellant did not receive any mobile messages from the NFAC. So there has been reasonable and honest cause for said non compliance.
3. For that appellant aforesaid contention is self proven from the recording of fact by the A.O. that the in first assessment proceeding as well as in first appellate proceeding appellant fully cooperated not only by furnishing all the documental submissions but also producing all the person being summoned by the A.O. u/s 131 for deposition as well as attending before the CIT(A) and Hon'ble ITAT. So appellant instant default is inadvertent and for bonafide reason.
4. For that appellant pray before the Hon'ble Bench of ITAT to restore the file back to the A.O. for the end of justice any adverse order will afflict the appellant with greatest financial hardship.
5. Appellant has all the relevant documents which were accordingly produced before the A.O, CIT(A) and Hon'ble ITAT in the first round of proceeding which demonstrates the clear sincerity and honesty of appellant.
6. For that appellant may modify the grounds.”