USHA GARG,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

There is a delay of 419 days in filing both the Captioned Appeals.

The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee has shifted her residence after the demise of her husband i.e. on 14/01/2011, all the correspondences have been done by served with the order impugned. Further submitted that the Assessee has not opened her e-mail on time due to demise of her family member, therefore, there is a delay in filing the captioned Appeals. Therefore, sought for condoning the delay.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the captioned Appeals, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeals on delay in latches.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee contended that the notices issued by the Department have not been served on the Assessee as the Assessee has shifted her residence after the demise of her husband i.e. on 14/01/2011 and all the correspondences have been done by the lower authorities to the old address of the Assessee, therefore, the Assessee could not be served with the order impugned, which resulted in filing the Appeals with delay.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 419 days in filing the present Appeals.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 23/12/2016 and 29/12/2016 u/s 144 r.w. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 17,08,710/- for Assessment Year 2011-12 and Rs.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Further submitted that the assessment order came to be be passed without the service of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeals.

Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Appeal has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits. The Assessee has raised the several grounds of appeal including the Ground of exercising the wrong jurisdiction by the A.O. and also non service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated any of the Grounds of appeal. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee and pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to participate in the first appellate proceedings.