BRIJESH CHANDRA,KONCH (JALAUN) vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NFAC NEW DELHI

The appeal in AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] dated 28.12.2021 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 21.03.2019 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal by the assessee by 1167 days. Considering the reason adduced in the condonation petition duly supported by an affidavit of the assessee, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication as assessee was prevented from sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal in time, in the interest of substantial justice.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. I have heard the learned DR and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order of the learned NFAC, I find that the learned NFAC had decided the issue ex parte without adjudicating the issue on merits giving its independent finding. Further the learned NFAC had also not condoned the delay in filing of appeal before it by 10 months by the assessee. I find that the assessee was pursuing alternative remedy before the learned AO by pursuing rectification application under section 154 of the Act. I feel that constitutes sufficient cause from not preferring appeal before the learned NFAC in time. Hence, in the interest of substantial justice and fairplay, I deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to file of learned NFAC to first condone the delay, admit the appeal for adjudication and dispose of the appeal de novo in accordance with law. Needless to mention the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with learned NFAC in his own interest for expeditious disposal of the appeal by not taking unwarranted adjournments. The assessee is given liberty to raise additional grounds, if any, and additional evidences, if any, in support of his contentions. With these observations, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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