ASHOK DAMODHAR GHOLAP,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 05.08.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 18.02.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to non-appearance before Ld. CIT(A) on the scheduled dates of hearing appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) in limine as time barred by limitation. She stated that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal. She therefore prayed that the appeal may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits so as to enable the assessee to substantiate his case by adducing cogent evidences. Ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose the request.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the assessee is an individual and did not file return of income for A.Y. 2015-16. Based on the information about purchase of immovable property and rental income, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued and thereafter assessment proceedings carried out and various additions made in the case of assessee and the income assessed at Rs.71,98,982/-. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 105 days and the delay was mainly on account of lack of proper knowledge about the filing of appeals by consultant looking after the taxation matters and assessee took some time to find proper counsel and file the appeal before CIT(A). We observe that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a detailed order dealing with the delay in filing of the appeal and has finally dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 105 days. We notice that assessee would not have gained anything by delaying the filing of appeal because the assessee has been fastened with the addition of 71,98,982/-. We are satisfied with the reasons so stated and taking liberal approach and in the larger interest of justice and placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107), we hereby condone the delay of 105 days in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A).

Considering the fact that assessee could not substantiate his case by any representation adducing cogent evidences and also that ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case, we are of the view that under the given facts and circumstances of the instant appeal and in all fairness the issues raised in the instant appeal are hereby restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Therefore, after considering the submissions/evidences filed by the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to provide update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.