ASHISH GOYAL HUF,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NEEMUCH

The captioned two appeals are filed by assessee. The details of these appeals are as under: is an appeal against the order of first-appeal dated 06.02.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 09.12.2019 passed by learned ITO, Neemuch [“AO”] u/s 143(3)/147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12.

The registry has informed that these appeals are delayed by 379 days and 277 days respectively and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed condonation-applications and prays for condonation. So far as reason of delay in filing appeals is concerned, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has given email id nagda.ashok1982 @gmail.com in Form No. 35 for sending communications of first-appeal but the CIT(A) sent communications to vkjainmh@yahoo.com. Ld. AR has placed on record the copies of notices sent by CIT(A) to demonstrate this clinching fact. Therefore, the notices of hearing and impugned order did not reach to assessee. He further submitted that the CIT(A) has not served notices and order through physical mode. Hence, neither the assessee could avail opportunity of hearings before CIT(A) which led to passing of ex-parte orders by CIT(A) nor the assessee could file present appeals in time. It is subsequently when the counsel of assessee visited income-tax portal that the impugned orders came to his knowledge. Immediately, the assessee arranged to file present appeals without further delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no deliberate 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

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. We observe that in the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first-appeals and merely confirmed AO’s orders, although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first appeal-orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be set aside and these matters are fit for restoring to him for a proper adjudication. Ld. AR for assessee

Considering above submissions and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand these matters back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.