SH. SANGEET SINGH SOM,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

The first ground taken by the assessee relates to not condoning the delay by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore not admitting the delay of the assesee as barred by limitation.

I have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same. I noted that the assesssee has filed the appeal in this case before the Ld. CIT(A) not within the prescribed time. The appeal was filed late and for which the assessee has moved an application for condonation of the delay alongwith the appeal dated 25.3.2014. In the condonation application the assessee has clearly stated that the appeal was to be filed by the assessee on 25.3.2014 while the same was to be filed on 29th January, 2011. The assesee has given the reason that in the assessment completed the AO made the protective addition and substantive addition was made in the hands of real beneficiary and at that time the Counsel for the assessee advised the assessee not to file the appeal. The assesee had duly deposited the due tax on the addition made on substantive basis. Subsequently the AO changed the protective addition to substantive addition which were never intimated to the assessee and the assessee came to know only when the notice was received by the assessee and the assesee without any delay filed the appeal. In my view the reasons for the condonation of the delay taken by the assessee is a sufficient cause. For the mistake of the counsel, assessee cannot be penalised. I therefore condone the delay in respect of the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore the appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction that the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is statistically allowed.