ANNU KUMAR,ROORKEE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DERHADUN

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 27/02/2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

An assessment order came to be passed u/s 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed for delay in latches on27/02/2025 vide order Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the order of the A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided on the grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee and the order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law. Further submitted that there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and there was no sufficient cause to condone the same accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal, which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal.Accordingly, relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities 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 Ld. CIT(A) before the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessee filed letter for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that he did not know about the ongoing assessment proceedings as the show cause notice send via email was of accountant who had left the job and that the appellant did not receive the order until he received recovery notice dated 04.08.2023 from ITO Dehradun. The Ld. CIT(A) held that there is no sufficient cause to condone the 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 liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987)

Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 348 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since, the assessment order is also passed ex-parte, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose.