SUJAY LAXMESHWAR,BENGALURU vs. CIT(A0, DELHI

Per Dr. Manish Borad, AM: This appeal by the assesse is directed against the order dated 24.04.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for A.Y.2016-17 which is arising from the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 25.12.2018 framed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Bhopal. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 566 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Application for condonation of Sujay Laxmeshwar 2 delay alongwith the affidavit is placed on record. The main reason for the delay is the death of the previous counsel Late Shri Ashwini Rinwa and also unfamiliarity of the assessee with electronic communication. After hearing the Departmental Representative and considering the sufficient cause mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and further considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) and also observing that the delay is unintentional, we condone the delay of 566 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal but with the assistance of both the sides we notice that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non compliance. Ld. Departmental Representative though supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) but is fair enough in not strongly objecting the request of Ld. Counsel for the assessee of restoring the issue raised on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and the assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17 has been framed Sujay Laxmeshwar 3 on 25.12.18 u/s 143(3) of the Act and against the returned income of Rs.3,73,690/, Ld. A.O after making additions on account of disallowance of indexation at Rs.12,85,146/- and disallowance of addition on account of excess claim of fees paid at Rs.11,99,710/-, has assessed total income at Rs.28,58,550/-. We further note that after the assessee having preferred the appeal before Ld. CIT(A), first notice of hearing was issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on 21.01.2021 which was falling during the Covid-19 pandemic period and for subsequent notices also the assessee failed to respond. In absence of any submissions by the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) has affirmed the addition made by the Ld. A.O. 5. We however considering the prayer of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and also observing that the assessee could not plead its case before the Ld. CIT(A) by filing material evidence, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue raised on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication and for passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld. CIT(A) shall examine the issues after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly the finding of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the issue raised in the instant appeal on Sujay Laxmeshwar 4 merits are restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication to be carried at in accordance with the law. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.10.2025. (PARESH M JOSHI) Accountant Member Indore, 24.10.2025 Dev/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore