SIDDHART SHANKAR,INDIRAPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD- 2(2)(4), GHAZIABAD, HAPUR CHUNGI, GHAZIABAD

It is noted that there is delay of 337 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and for this the assessee has filed the petition for condonation by stating as under:- “The order was uploaded on Income Tax portal on 06.08.2024. Though this appeal should have been filed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi on or before 6.10.2024. I handed over the papers to look into the matter. I asked the status of appeal, it came to my knowledge that appeal could not be filed. I changed my counsel appoint ne one. They prepared the appeal and filed on 3.10.2025. It was not due to my mistake. Thus delay occurred 362 days in fling the appeal and in support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of M/s Onkar Chandra Pankaj Kumar, Pithoragarh vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and finally prayed to condone the delay.”

After hearing the Ld. DR and keeping in view the cause of delay in filing the appeal, we are of the considered view that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for delay in filing the appeal, hence, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal and proceed further.

Upon careful consideration the relevant records, we find that AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act and also Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account non-prosecution, even without going into the merits of the case properly. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the directions to consider each and every aspect of the matter, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which ld. DR has no objection. However, Assessee is 2 | P a g e directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer during the proceedings in order to enable the AO to pass the order, in accordance with law.