Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
(A.Y 2016-17) Mohd Shazad Vs Income Tax Officer Salempur, Rajputan, Roorkee, Ward-1(3)(4) Distt. Haridwar 247667, Roorkee, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand PAN: BKXPS3769N Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Tarun Deep Singh, Adv Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 09/07/2025 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Office of the Income Tax Officer (‘ITO’ for short), Roorkee dated 25/07/2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
There is a delay of 340 days. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the present Appeal contending that the Assessee has engaged the service of the Chartered Accountant for filing the Appeal before the Tribunal,who died in the month of March, 2024. The Assessee was under the bonafide impression that the Appeal has been filed by the said Charter Accountant, however, the same has not been filed by him. After coming to know about the above facts preferred the present Appeal with a delay. The Assessee has also produced the death certificate of Chartered Accountant.
Thus, sought for condoning the delay. For the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 340 days in filing the Appeal is hereby condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 20/12/2018 by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 1,32,97,981/-, as against the returned income of Rs. 8,30,910/- by making certain addition. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 20/12/2018, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 25/07/2023, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
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.
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 first 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. 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 the Appeal afresh on its merits 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 without failed.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.