ANIL KUMAR PANDEY,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), AURANGABAD
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2017-2018. The appeal was filed with a delay of 304 days. The assessee applied for condonation of delay, citing health issues supported by medical documents.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 304 days considering the health issues of the assessee. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to the assessee's health issues? Whether the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee?
Sections Cited
304
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC BENCH”, PATNA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
आदेश / O R D E R
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.10.2023 for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Nishant Maitin, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashwani Kumar, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 304 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit along with medical documents stating therein sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeal, which are not found to be false. Accordingly, as the delay is on account of health issues of the assessee, therefore, the
2 ITA No.625/PAT/2024 delay of 304 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. Ld. AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was submitted that if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee to represent the case before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee would be able to produce all the relevant documents to substantiate his claim. 5. In reply, ld.Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee knowing did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) and even the assessee could not substantiate his claim before either of the authorities below. It was the submission that the orders of the authorities below should be upheld. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of para 5.2 the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A), shows that the notices were issued to the assessee, however, the assessee did not response to the same, neither any reply has been filed by the assessee. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the and in the interest of justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudication afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) providing documentary evidence to substantiate his claim, positively.
3 ITA No.625/PAT/2024 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/06/2025. Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER Kolkata; दिनाांक Dated 18/06/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, पटना / DR, ITAT, Patna 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,
(Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पटना /ITAT, Patna
