SHVETANG BALBHADRA VAISHNAV,JUNAGADH vs. ITO, WARD-1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

The Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that delay of 255 days had occurred because the assessee engaged tax consultant and the e-mail id belonging to his consultant, was jyotish.maankad@gmail.com to handle assessee`s case. Due to heavy workload, office of consultant unintentionally forgot to take necessary action about notices and appellate order. Therefore, the A.Y 17-18 Shvetang B Vaishnav delay has occurred and this delay may be condoned, and the appeal may be decided on merit.

On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of the delay.

I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I note that the order of the ld.CIT(A) was served on other email-id and it was not served on the email- id registered with the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the assessee whenever, he got the order physically, he immediately took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal. Besides, there was mistake committed by the tax consultant of the assessee and therefore the assessee should not be penalized on account of mistake committed by his tax consultant. I note that this delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, therefore, in the interest of justice, I condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing on merit.

On merit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the issue on merit and since the assessee has argued before the ld.CIT(A) that he would surely opt for VSVS scheme. Later on, the assessee found that he did not have money to be deposited in the VSVS scheme. Therefore, he contested the appeal on merit. The learned Counsel also submitted that assessee has appointed multiple advocates/ tax consultant, to handle this appeal, who have confused the assessee, and nobody appeared before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed before the Bench, that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld CIT(A). A.Y 17-18 Shvetang B Vaishnav

The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.

I have heard both the parties. I note that the assessee could not plead his case before the ld.CIT(A) and could not submit relevant documents and evidences on merit before the ld.CIT(A). I find that assessee has appointed multiple advocates/ tax consultant, to handle this appeal, who have confused the assessee, and nobody appeared before the ld. CIT( A), therefore, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. I am of the view that assessee should not be penalized on account of mistake of his advocate/ tax consultant. Therefore, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld.CIT(A).Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.