Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2014-15, which was delayed by 1083 days. The delay was due to the assessee's chartered accountant suffering from cancer and subsequently passing away, leading to a lack of knowledge about the CIT(A)'s order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1083 days, noting that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide all relevant documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Condonation of significant delay in filing the appeal and the validity of an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Sections Cited
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 11.08.2021 for the assessment year 2014-2015.
Shri Nishant Maitin, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashwani Kumar, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal of the assessee is barred by 1083 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein that the chartered accountant who was looking after the tax matter of the assessee was suffering from cancer and subsequently left for his heavenly abode, therefore, the assessee could not get information about the status of the appeal and when the contacted the another chartered accountant, the present appeal has already been suffered huge delay. It was the submission that the delay may kindly be condoned and appeal may kindly be admitted for hearing. Accordingly, as the delay is on account of lack of knowledge about the passing of the order of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the delay of 1083 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
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.
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.
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of 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