MADHURI AGARWAL,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(2), LUCKNOW

The appeal filed by the assessee is beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay duly supported by medical certificates; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and being convinced with the pleadings of the assessee, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 15/07/2016. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and passed assessment order on 14/11/2017 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,06,24,232/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 19/10/2023, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for want of prosecution.

Being aggrieved further, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed impugned order without affording sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner in violation of the provisions u/s 250(6) of the Act. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) was duty bound u/s 250(6) of the IT Act to pass a speaking order on various grounds of appeal, on merits, but learned CIT(A) failed to do so. In view of the foregoing, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) should be set aside and the issue in dispute should be restored to the file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Sr. D.R. for the Revenue did not express any objection to this, and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. In view of the submissions made, the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issue in dispute is restored back to the file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order, in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and ensuring adherence to section 250(6) of the I. T. Act.