IMRANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In appeal, CIT(Appeals) observed that there was a delay of 47 days in filing of appeal before him. However, CIT(Appeals) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into the merits of the assessee’s case.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 318 days in filing of the present appeal before us. In the said application, the assessee has submitted that delay in filing of appeal both before CIT(Appeals) as well as before us was unintentional and the Counsel for the assessee requested that the matter may be restored to file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration in the interests of justice.

In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in their respective orders.

We have heard the submissions of the assessee and perused the material on record. The assessee has sought condonation of delay A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 4 Imranbhai Patel. Ltd. vs. ITO of 318 days in filing the present appeal. The reasons explained by the assessee are that the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, was not noticed and therefore the assessee could not file the appeal in time before the Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The appeal filed before the CIT(A) was dismissed both on account of non-attendance and delay vide order dated 11.06.2024. The assessee has further explained that even this order of the CIT(A) escaped his attention and it was only upon attachment of his bank account on 14.02.2025 that he came to know about the said appellate order. Immediately thereafter, the assessee approached a Chartered Accountant and filed the present appeal before this Tribunal along with an application seeking condonation of delay. Considering the explanation furnished by the assessee and the fact that the assessee has demonstrated that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but was occasioned on account of bona fide circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. In the interests of justice, we therefore condone the delay of 318 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing on merits.

With respect to the request of the Counsel for the assessee to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer in the interests of justice, we are of the considered view that looking into the instant facts there has been complete non-cooperation on part of the assessee at all stages of tax proceedings. Accordingly, we are hereby imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- for setting the matter aside to the file of the Assessing Officer, which shall be deposited with A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 5 Imranbhai Patel. Ltd. vs. ITO the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund before the next date of hearing before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall verify the payment of the said cost before proceeding with the matter.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the manner indicated above.