MAHENDRA NARAYAN BHOIR ,RAIGAD vs. NAFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2743/PUN/2024
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Mahendra Narayan Bhoir,
Near Tahesildar Office AT Raigad- 410206. PAN : AQVPB6629H
Vs. National
Faceless
Assessment
Centre,
Delhi.
Appellant

Respondent

आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. There is a delay of 50 days in filing of the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. We are satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that he was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the present appeal within prescribed time limit. Ld. DR raised no serious objection to the condonation request made by the Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Date of hearing
: 28.01.2025
Date of pronouncement : 31.01.2025
2
assessee. Accordingly, the delay of 50 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee is an individual. A penalty of Rs.4,95,018/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
4. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any adjournment application was filed despite due service of notice of hearing.
Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing Ld.
DR as well as on the basis of material available on record.
5. In this regard, we find that admittedly Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has issued three hearing notices and since the assessee remained absent the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. We further find that admittedly Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has issued three notices of hearing i.e. 12.07.2024, 25.07.2024 and for 05.08.2024. All the above three notices were issued back to back within a short period of 24 days and even the impugned appeal order was not passed on merits of the case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case,
& in the interest of justice, without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned ex-parte order passed
3
by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to him with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce requisite documents/evidences/explanations in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld.
CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 31st day of January, 2025. (MANISH BORAD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 31st January, 2025. Sujeet
आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant.
2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent.
3. The Pr. CIT concerned.
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच,
पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune.

////
Senior Private Secretary

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.