PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA,JODHPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 28-12-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 raising grounds of appeal at Form No. 36.

2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noted that there is delay of 49 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit praying therein that he 2 PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 4(2) , JAIPUR remained mostly on tour and could not see the e-mail and thus it has escaped from his attention to see the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that it was also the bona fide mistake of the staff and thus the appeal could not be filed in time. He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay made by the assesse in filing the appeal. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noticed that the reason submitted by the assessee in his application for condonation of delay has merit and the same is condoned. 2.4 The Bench heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record and found that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and ld. CIT(A) and thus the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the assessee had failed to fulfill the mandatory and essential conditions for admission of appeal before him as per Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Although, before the Bench, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the detailed written submission and submitted that that Section 249(4)(b) of the Act is not applicable in his case as the assessee had not admitted any income for the relevant assessment year.

3 PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 4(2) , JAIPUR 2.5 Be that as it may since it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he could not put forth is defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case for which a cost of Rs.2.000/- is imposed upon the assessee which will be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. However, I am of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.6 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law.