RAHUL TANTED,INDORE vs. JCIT, R-1, INDORE

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 12.12.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 22.09.2022 passed by learned JCIT, Range-1, Indore [“AO”] u/s 271D of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

There is a small delay of 2 days in filing this appeal. Ld. AR for assessee submits that the delay has occurred because it took time to engage counsel for filing of appeal. Ld. AR further submits that the delay is not attributable to any negligence, malafide intention or ulterior motive and the assessee does not derive any benefit by making delay. He prays to condone delay. Ld. DR for revenue did not object to the submission of Ld. AR.

Ld. AR then submits that the assessee has been provided two opportunities by CIT(A) through notices dated 09.06.2023 and 04.12.2023 but those notices could not reach to the attention of assessee and hence the assessee could not make representation before CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) has passed impugned order ex-parte to assessee while upholding the penalty imposed by AO. Ld. AR submits that the assessee is ready and willing to make representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication of the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first-appeal.

Considering above submissions and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after giving necessary

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.