A.P.R.LEATHER EXPORTS,DINDIGUL vs. ITO WARD I(1), DINDIGUL

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai in appeal No.I.T.A. No.65/2010-11 dated 21.09.2015 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

None represented on behalf of the Assessee and Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.

An adjournment letter dated 17.03.2020 has been filed on behalf of the assessee, wherein the name of the Counsel is not mentioned. Consequently, the adjournment filed is rejected and the appeal disposed of.

The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 46 days for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition in an affidavit. In the affidavit the assessee has categorically admitted that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not served on the assessee and the same was also verified by him. It is submitted that subsequently a certified copy was taken on 28.03.2018. However, by that time, the Managing Partner of the assessee firm was down with viral fever and severe chest congestion which caused the delay. The affidavit filed by the assessee has not been shown to be false or improbable. This being so, I am of the view that the assessee has shown justifiable and reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the appeal. Consequently the delay of 46 days stands condoned and the appeal of the assessee is being disposed of on merits.

It was submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be upheld, in so far as the learned Commissioner of Income Tax

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

A perusal of the grounds in the present case shows that in Ground No.2, the assessee has categorically stated that he has not received notice of hearing, subsequent to the adjournment petition filed by him on 15.09.2015. A perusal of the para-3.2 of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shows that only two opportunities had been granted to the assessee, one on 26.08.2015 and the second on 16.09.2015. This being so, I am of the view that the assessee has not been granted adequate opportunity to represent his appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the circumstances, in the interest of natural justice, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is set aside and the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

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