SHIVENDU SHEKHAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD6(5), PATNA

The appeal is time barred by 256 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition saying that the assessee was not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as the appellant was never served with the NFAC, Delhi order u/s 250 of the Act dated 25.01.2024 on his e-mail ID or phone where the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. Assessing Officer was confirmed, despite of the fact that all the communication details like email ID and contact no. was correctly mentioned on the appellant’s portal for the communication of notices/letter/orders and in consequence, the assessee was not able to file appeal against the said order within the prescribed limit as stipulated u/s 253(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) without considering the merit of the case, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer appeals, due to that there was a delay of 256 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of 256 days. Hence the delay is condoned.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 31.12.2017 showing an income of

The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate his claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 25th January, 2024.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.

At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding it afresh.

At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order treating the amount of Rs.22,40,000/- as income of the assessee under long- term capital gain since the assessee concealed his income and treated the balance tax payable at Rs.9,32,109/- by the assessee. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate his claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi) (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Accountant Member Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 4th day of June, 2025