MOHAMMED HELALUDDIN AHMED,DANKIGAON, GOPAL NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD, NAGAON

None represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjay Jha represented on behalf of the Revenue.

It was submitted by the ld. DR that the order of the ld. CIT (A) is an ex-parte order. A perusal of the CIT (A)’s order noticed that the

The learned DR on the other hand left the issue to the wisdom of the Bench.

After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the learned CIT (A) has not condoned the delay of 47 days for late filing of the appeal for the reason that the delay has no bonafide and genuineness reason. We have gone through the reasons attributable to late filing of appeal and found that the reasons are bonafide and genuine and accordingly, we condone the delay of 47 days. In the same breath, we restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT (A) to decide the appeal on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. which is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A).

We are of the view that as the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A), the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is also to be decided after deciding the quantum appeal and therefore restore to CIT (A) for adjudication after giving opportunity to assessee.