CHANDRAPAL SINGH ,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD- 3(1), BULANDSHAHR

The ld. CIT(A) noted in the appellate order that appeal is time barred. The notice explaining the delay and removing the defect was sent to assessee but no reply have been filed by assessee. In these circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) considered the appeal of assessee as non est being defective, same was dismissed in limine.

After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view, matter requires reconsideration at the level of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that assessee was hospitalized many times and was not able to participate in any proceedings. Various medical prescription certificates are filed on record. He has also submitted that no defect notice have been received by the assessee. He has, therefore, submitted that matter may be remanded to the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh.

2 Chandrapal Singh 4. The ld. DR also suggested in these circumstances, matter could be remanded to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

After considering rival submissions and facts of the case stated above, I am of the view, the matter requires reconsideration at the level of ld. CIT(A). I accordingly, set aside the appellate order and restore the appeal of assessee to the file of ld. CIT(A) with direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee afresh by giving the reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Court on 01/08/2019