SKT NURSERY & PRIMARY SCHOOL,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1., VELLORE

& 2365/CHNY/2024 2. At the outset, we notice that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals in limine without condoning the delay of 143 days and 64 days in filing the appeals before him. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee could not present the condonation application at the time of filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) without giving notice, had rejected the appeals in limine. It was submitted by the ld.AR that before dismissing the appeals in limine on account of delay in filing the appeals, assessee ought to have been provided with defect notice stating that condonation petitions has not filed before the First Appellate Authority.

The ld.DR was duly heard.

We have heard rival submission and perused the material on record. The appeals filed by the assessee have been dismissed by the CIT(A) in limine without condoning the delay of 143 days & 64 days respectively. Admittedly, the assessee had not filed the condonation petition. The CIT(A) without issuing defect notice’s to the assessee had dismissed the appeals of the assessee. The CIT(A) ought to have issued defect notice bringing to the notice of the assessee concerned that appeals filed before him are not accompanied with condonation application. In the interest of justice & 2365/CHNY/2024 and equity, we are of the view that assessee should be provided with an opportunity to explain the delay before the CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeals are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before a decision is taken on the condonation applications. In the event, CIT(A) is satisfied with the reasons given by the assessee for condoning the delay before him, necessarily he needs to adjudicate the issue’s on merits. It is ordered accordingly.