Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed 248 days late, as the NFAC did not issue notices for reply or hearing. The assessee claims this delay was unintentional due to an issue with seeded email and mobile numbers in the PAN database. The Revenue opposed the condonation.
Held
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be reasonable and unintentional. Therefore, the delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted. The Tribunal also set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned? Whether the matter is to be remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication?
Sections Cited
144, 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ) & RAJESH KUMAR
Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bhagwati Sahoo, Barbil, Vs. ITO, Keonjhar Keonjhar PAN/GIR No. EXPVS 8954 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Chitta Ranjan Panda, CA Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 02/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02/09/2025 O R D E R PER: DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ)
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 24.07.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10953/2019-20 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The appeal is time barred by 248 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit stating that the ld CIT(A),
P a g e 1 | 4 NFAC did not issue any notice for submitting the reply or hearing either in email or through post. However, the appeal order states that the notice was issued on 26.1.2021 and no notice of hearing was received by the assessee. This is because the email Id and mobile number of the insurance agent has been seeded in the PAN data base. It was in this backdrop as the assessee did not receive the order, there was delay in filing the appeal of 248 days. It is also stated that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and prayed for condoning the delay.
On the other hand, ld Sr DR opposed to condone the delay.
After perusing the condonation petition and considering the rival submissions, we are satisfied that the reasons stated in the petition are reasonable and unintentional on the part of the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay of 248 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has passed the order exparte and, therefore, the matter be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. It was also the submission that the order be given to cancel the duplicate PAN No. FXVPS 8954 J as the same has already been surrendered before the Department.
In reply, ld Sr DR supported the order of the ld CIT(A).
P a g e 2 | 4
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that as there was no response to the notices to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences and submissions, ld CIT(A) the order passed u/s.144/154 of the Act modifying the taX and interest without any discussion on the issue. Before us, ld AR submitted that the main dispute arose because of dual PAN Card, for which, the assessee could not file any evidence and represent before the ld CIT(A) to substantiate his case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and in order to meet the principle of natural justice, remit the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby direct the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the CIT(A) failing which the ld CIT(A) 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, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 02 /09/2025.