SHANTARAM YADAV,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(4),, PUNE

These two appeals by the assessee against the common order dated 27-09-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14.

The issues raised in both the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

First, we shall take up appeal in .

Upon hearing both the parties, we note that the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the order dated 17-03-2016 with a delay of 201 days. The CIT(A) vide Para No. 3 of held that the no application for condonation of the said delay is filed nor any explanation advanced along with Appeal Memo. The ld. AR submits that the assessee is ready to file an application for condoning the said delay and prayed to direct the CIT(A) to consider the same. It is noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-filing of petition to condone the delay of 201 days and no discussion made on merits. Therefore, we find the assessee must get an opportunity. The ld. DR did not report any objection in remanding the matter to the file of CIT(A). Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we direct the CIT(A) to condone the delay of 201 days and decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A) for its fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

We note that this appeal was filed against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR submits that the CIT(A) issued notice to the address where the assessee changed and the assessee could not receive the same. He prayed to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A). We note that the CIT(A) decided the penalty appeal ex-parte of assessee and in our opinion, the assessee must get an opportunity to prosecute penalty appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. DR did not report any objection in remanding the matter to the file of CIT(A). Therefore, taking into consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A) for its fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

To sum up, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.