Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal which was time-barred by 183 days. The assessee's counsel submitted that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte because the assessee could not represent due to the Ld. CIT(A) issuing notices during the Covid-19 lockdown and the death of the assessee's counsel.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the circumstances, the assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the lower authorities and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
order
: 21.01.2025 ORDER
Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member:
The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.12.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
This appeal of the assessee is time barred by 183 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the said application, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and the same is taken up for hearing.
The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the lower authorities in making/confirming the addition of Rs. 10,86,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account.
I.T.A. No.: 561/PAT/2024 Mohammad Aslam Khan, AY : 2017-18 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee inviting our attention to the impugned orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has submitted that both the orders of the authorities below have been passed ex parte of the assessee. The assessee has duly pleaded in the grounds of appeal that the assessee could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A) because the Ld. CIT(A) had issued notice of hearing during Covid-19/lock down period. Further, the Ld. Counsel representing the assessee namely Shri Sudhir Kumar Narayan during the said period was diagnosed with prostate cancer and that disease had occurred time and again and ultimately, he died on 09.06.2024. That due to the aforesaid circumstance, the assessee could not represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A). It has been pleaded that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that the assessee may be given an opportunity to bring the true and correct factual position before the lower authorities.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
Considering the aforesaid submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee and in the interests of justice, in our view, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of this, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on this issue. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and if requires remand report from the Assessing Officer has to be obtained and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.