INAYAT NAJMUDDIN BHARMAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

Inayat Najmuddin Bharmal Income Tax Officer, No.15, III Main Road, East Non-Corp. Ward-1(2) Abhiramapuram, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai-600 004. [PAN: AABPB7896A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Naresh Singh Rathore, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Chinthapalli Meher Chand, JCIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.10.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065635516(1) dated 13.06.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2015- 16. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 13.06.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

2.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 147 r.w. 143(3) dated 11.12.2021 and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assesse had committed delay of just 7 days and for which it had justified grounds. It was stated that the chartered account initially engaged by the assesse demised as a result the delay happened. The Ld. Counsel informed that its case is fully covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal dated 04.10.2024 which means that the AO did not have any authority to initiate the impugned proceedings u/s 148. The Ld. Counsel submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on its merits and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A). In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel filed a detailed paperbook. The Ld. DR on the other hand by way of his written submissions submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal dated 04.10.2024 is not applicable in this case.

3.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse as to why it could not file its appeal in time. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. 4.0 We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assesse and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 7 days in filing of appeal in this case. He will be at liberty to call for any remand report from the Ld. AO if warranted by the facts of the case. The assesse shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assesse side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to readjudicate the matter de novo. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.