NISAR AHMED KHAN,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 23.11.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Mumbai [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 29.11.2019 passed by learned ITO-1(1), Ujjain [“AO”] u/s 144/147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 420 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee is a retired person. He submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application supported by an affidavit. Referring to same, Ld. AR explained that in Form No. 35 filed to CIT(A), the e-mail id gncu341@gmail.com / goyalandcompany@gmail.com was provided which belonged to assessee’s counsel. However, the counsel of assessee neither informed about the notices nor about impugned order. Therefore, neither the notices of hearing nor the impugned order sent by CIT(A) reached to assessee. Subsequently, when the assessee received recovery notice dated 19.02.2025 (copy of notice is placed before bench) from the office of AO, the assessee became aware of impugned order having been passed by CIT(A) as ex-parte. The assessee thereafter filed present appeal. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He further submitted that the sole reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application. He submitted that there is “sufficient cause” for delay and hence the delay should be condoned. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit

On merit of case, Ld. AR submitted that the AO has also passed assessment-order ex-parte to assessee due to non-compliances of notices.

Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.