KRISHAN PAL SINGH,BAREILLY vs. ITO-1(1), BAREILLY-NEW

2018-19 against impugned appellate order dated 12/08/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067544003(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] for short].

(B) In this case assessment order dated 27/02/2023 was passed u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144AB of the I. T. Act (DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1050143843(1) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,03,98,324/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.1,03,98,324/- was made towards variation on respect of deposits which were subsequently withdrawn. The assessment order was passed ex-parte qua the assessee. Vide impugned appellate order dated 12/08/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) did not decide the assessee’s appeal on merits. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by learned CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. The assessee had requested for condonation of delay however, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed treating the same as inadmissible on grounds of limitation. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(C) At the time of hearing before us, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was sufficient cause behind filing the appeal belatedly before the learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the appeal of the assessee have been dismissed without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. He drew our attention to records and pleaded that the appellant had sufficient cause, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, for not filing appeal in the office of learned CIT(A) within time frame mentioned in section 249(2) of the Act. He further submitted that there was no mala-fide intention behind filing the appeal belatedly. Moreover, he contended that in view of these submissions, the delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. He also submitted that the Assessing Officer had passed ex-parte assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, he contended that the issue in dispute regarding addition made in the assessment order be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo orders. The learned Departmental Representative expressed no objection to the submissions made by learned A.R. for the assessee that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A). As regards the submissions made by learned A.R. for the assessee, requesting to restore the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer, he left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied within the meaning of section 249(3), that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) within prescribed time limit. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal for decision on merits. Further, on perusal of the assessment order and the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A), we are of the view, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case before us, that if the assessee has any grievance regarding reasonable opportunity not being provided to the assessee during assessment proceedings; the learned CIT(A) had no occasion to examine this matter as learned CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine, on the ground that the appeal filed in the office of learned CIT(A) was barred by limitation. Therefore, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case, this matter should be first considered by learned CIT(A), as CIT(A) is the first appellate forum.