Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed after a delay of 397 days. The assessee cited a neurological problem and hospitalization as reasons for the delay. The assessee had filed the return of income showing a total income of Rs. 26,42,580/-. The AO completed assessment at Rs. 52,99,346/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 397 days after being satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without considering the merits. Since the assessee undertook to cooperate with the proceedings if the matter was restored, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits should be set aside.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1), 143(3)
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 : 2013-14 Biswanath Jha, Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Gandhinagarpara, Balangir- Sambalpur 767001 PAN/GIR No. ABTPJ 6411 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue by : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench 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 11/01/2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Sambalpur/10177/2016-17 passed for Assessment Year 2013- 14.
The appeal is time barred by 397 days. The assessee has filed 2. condonation petition dated 2.5.2025 supported by an affidavit stating that the order passed by the ld CIT(A), NFAC dated 11.1.2024 and the appeal P a g e 1 | 4 against the said order was to be filed within 60 days from the issue of the order. However, as the assessee was suffering from neurological problem alongwith right lower abdomen pain, he was admitted in the hospital for treatment and the doctor advised not to move and do any kind of physical movement. The appellant being busy in medical treatment, could not be able to look after his income tax appeal, for which, there was delay of 297 days in filing the appeal. It is prayed that the delay was not intentional and same may be condoned. Ld Sr DR opposed the condonation petition.
After hearing the parties and perusing the condonation petition, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the time and hence, we condone the delay of 397 days and admit the appeal for hearing.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.9.2013 showing total income of Rs.26,42,580/- claiming a refund of Rs.2,840/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee and in response to the notices, the assessee furnished related documents/details/clarifications/explanations time to time through the AR of the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs.52,99,346/-.
P a g e 2 | 4
Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A). However, despite various opportunities given to the assessee, there was no representation from the side of the assessee and accordingly, ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution without considering the case on merits. He prayed that one more opportunity be granted and the assessee will cooperate in the set aside proceedings.
On the other hand, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A). He stated that various opportunities have been granted to the assessee but the assessee failed to comply with the same.
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) confirmed the addition made by the ld AO. Before us, ld AR undertakes that the assessee will cooperate the proceedings, if the matter is restored back to the file of the ld CIT(A). 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 his file
P a g e 3 | 4 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(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 02/07/2025.