TOPSI KENDA C.S.SHOP,JAMURIA vs. ITO, WARD -1(3), ASANSOL

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT’] dated 30.07.2021 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) without going into the merits of the case and as there was a delay of nearly 8 years in filing the appeal by the assessee. In this regard, assessee had filed a delay condonation petition before the ld. CIT(A). However, petition filed by the assessee for condoning the delay was dismissed in limine by the ld. CIT(A). Due to this, assessee did not get proper opportunity to address its issues before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. AR submitted before us that this matter may be remand back to the ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal on its merits of the case. Further, he submitted that the period in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may be condoned as there is a reasonable cause for such delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted before us that they had made following prayer before the ld. CIT(A) by stating following reasons which is reproduced below: “During the course of scrutiny proceedings, we do not have any tax professional to appear and explain our case. Sri Ajit Chakraborty, son of late Anandamoyee Chakraborty. Sole license used to look after the liquor business. During the scrutiny proceedings, Sri Ajit Chakrabort unfortunately expired and our shop remained closed for a substantial period due to family dispute, if the order of the Assessing officer is gone through, it may be found that the AO has incorporated the fact that many notices were returned by the postal authority with remarks "prop. expired, returned to sender". Smt. Mangala Chakraborty and Smt Mithu Chakraborty, wife and daughter of late Ajit Chakraborty respectively was contacted by the department and made aware of the ongoing scrutiny proceedings with a request to appear before department to explain the return of income of the firm. Being totally unaware of income tax act and law, they complied with the department innocently. Since, then, we have no idea about the fate of departmental scrutiny proceedings as we did not receive any assessment order, demand notice etc. because the shop remained closed for substantial period due to family dispute as the sole license Anandomoyee Chakraborty expired in the year 2008. Subsequently, while giving appeal effect of other assessment year where refund was raised, departmental AO noticed that there

Therefore, considering the circumstances of the case, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to appear before the ld. CIT(A) so as to decide all the issues afresh on the merits of the case. We also heard the submission of the ld. DR and he submitted before us that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) was a reasoned order and the ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed the condonation petition as well as appeal filed by the assessee.

We after hearing the rival submission of the parties and going through the material available on record and perusing the impugned order passed by ld. CIT(A) where the assessee submitted a reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and it was happened due to the death of the sole licensee who used to look after the business affairs of assessee. Therefore, the delay was happened in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

We after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing both the parties, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee and directed the ld. CIT(A) to decide all the issues placed before us afresh on the merits of the case and further we are of the considered view that the since the order of the ld. CIT(A) was not decided on the merits of the case and no discussion has been made on the issues involved. We in the interest of justice set aside the impugned order remit it back to the file of ld. CIT(A) deciding the issues raised before us by way of speaking order. We also direct the assessee to remain vigilant in receiving the notices of hearing of the ld. CIT(A) and should not request for any adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause and should file all necessary documents so as to facilitate ld. CIT(A) for passing the order.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.09.2022.