SMT. MALATHI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]-6, Bengaluru dated 09/02/2018, in so far as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to the law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances in the appellant's case.

2. The appellant denies herself liable to be taxed on a total income assessed by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] amounting to Rs. 88,12,040/- as against the total income reported by the appellant of Rs. 4,89,640/-, on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case.

3. The ex-parte order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] is bad in law as the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing, which is in grave violation of principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case.

Page 3 of 4 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all the grounds of appeal urged above.

12. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.”

3. This appeal was filed by the assessee after a delay of 51 days. The assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit in which it is stated that on the receipt of the order of ld. CIT(A), the matter was referred to ld. AR of assessee and he was to suggest the assessee regarding the next course of remedy available as against the ex-parte order. He asked the assessee to contact after three weeks to suggest the next course of action on the impugned order of ld. CIT(A). It is also submitted that assessee contacted the said ld. AR of assessee after three weeks but no advice was given and he sought further time and the assessee was not aware of the limitation period for preferring an appeal before the Tribunal and the said ld. AR of assessee did not guide the assessee properly and subsequently, the assessee met another counsel in a social gathering and in course of that meeting, he suggested to immediately file appeal before tribunal with a request for condonation of delay and thereafter, the assessee filed the appeal. It is submitted that under these facts, the delay should be condoned. The ld. DR of revenue opposed the condonation of delay but considering the facts of present case and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay.

4. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee before us that the paper book containing pages 1 to 120 was filed before ld. CIT(A) on 13.10.2017 but the same was not considered by him while deciding the assessee’s appeal and hence, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision after considering the paper book filed by the assessee and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. He submitted that if matter is restored back, the assessee will make proper compliance before ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A).

Page 4 of 4 5. We have considered the rival submissions and in the facts of present case discussed above, we feel it proper to restore the entire matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision. We order accordingly. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage.