BALRAJ SINGH,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ITO-I(5), SHAHJAHANPUR

Balraj Singh Vs. ITO-1(5) Ajmatpur, Dhakia Tiwari, I.T. Office Bldg, Bareilly More, Shahjahanpur-242001. Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh- 242407. PAN:GWJPS7473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR) O R D E R (A) This appeal vide 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 19.09.2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068846841(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in the specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

Assessment Year:2017-18 2 The facts of the case, in brief, are that, in the present case, the (C) appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) in limine, without going into the merits of the appeal, invoking section 249(4)(b) of I.T. Act. On perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is obvious that there was no admitted tax payable by the assessee for the year under consideration. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned CIT(A).

(D) At the time of hearing, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard. He supported the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A). Materials on record were perused. It is found that there was no admitted tax payable by the assessee for the year under consideration. Therefore, the provisions of section 249(4)(b) I.T. Act were not attracted. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to admit the appeal and adjudicate the same on merits in accordance with law. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issue in dispute regarding additions made in assessment order are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.