Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2011-12 with an 88-day delay against a revisionary order passed under Section 263, having mistakenly failed to file it earlier while filing a similar appeal for AY 2010-11. The assessee also failed to attend proceedings before the AO and CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it bonafide and in the interest of substantial justice. Following a precedent in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11, the Tribunal restored the issue for AY 2011-12 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is granted a reasonable hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and if the case should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to non-representation by the assessee in previous proceedings.
Sections Cited
263
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 22.12.2023 for the AY 2011-12.
At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 88 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which a condonation petition was filed. As per the reasons stated before us, there were two appeals for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12 to be filed before the Tribunal against the revisionary orders passed u/s 263 of the Act. However, the assessee filed only one appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 and forget to file the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 under the wrong notion. It was brought to notice of assessee company on 13.05.2024 about the non-filing of appeal.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay in filing the appeal is for bonafide and has sufficient reasons and accordingly, the delay of 88 days is condoned as the substantial justice has to be prevailed over technicalities so that the appellant is not denied the right to be heard before disposing of the appeal.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed before the Bench a decision of the co-odinite Bench in assessee own case in for A.Y. 2010-11 dated 21st August, 2024, in which the identical issue for A.Y. 2010-11 was restored to the file of the ld. AO for fresh adjudication on the ground that the case was not represented by the assessee before the authorities below. The ld. AR therefore prayed that in the interest of justice and fair play, the issue may be restored to the file of the ld. AO in consonance with the decision of the co- ordinate Bench in A.Y. 2010-11 for fresh re-adjudication. The ld. DR on the other and left the issue to the wisdom of the bench.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that under similar facts the co-ordinate Bench has taken view and restored the matter to the file of the ld. AO for fresh adjudication in the preceding assessment year .i.e. AY 2010- 11. In the current assessment year also, we note that the proceedings were not attended by the assessee either before the ld. AO or before the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore, ends of justice would be well served if the issue is restored to the file of the ld. AO in line with the decision of the co-ordinate Bench. Therefore, we restore the issue to the file of the ld AO to re-
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.01.2025.