VINUBHAI JAYANTIBHAI SAGAR,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

At the outset, the assessee claimed that in Form NO. 35 of the appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A) categorically mentioned not to send the hearing notices through email. Without noticing the same, Ld. CIT(A) issued four hearing notices between 21-06-2023 to 14-0- 2023 which was not complied by the assessee which has resulted in passing exparte appellate order. Further the Registry has noted that there is a delay of 398 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee by way of a Notarized Affidavit explained that he is semi- literate person not having knowledge of Income Tax laws. The same were handled by local ITP. Hence not aware of the exparte appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). However when recovery proceedings were initiated, he has engaged the Chartered Accountant from Ahmedabad and filed the present appeal with the delay of 398 days. The delay is neither intention nor wanton, but the circumstances mentioned above and requested to condone the delay.

Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue has no objection in condoning the delay and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the case on merits.

We have heard the rival submission and perused the materials available on record. We are satisfied with the reasons explained by the assessee in the Notarized Affidavit. Thus we hereby condone the delay of 398 days in filing the above appeal. Since the assessee was served hearing notices through email, now Ld. CIT(A) is directed to issue physical notice of hearing to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits of the case. Needless to say that the assessee A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 3 Vinubhai jayantibhai Sagar vs. ITO should make use of this opportunity by filing all relevant material and evidences before Ld. CIT(A) and to pass order on merits of the case.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee allowed for statistical purpose.