BAIDYANATH DHAM ENTERPRISE,MURSHIDABAD vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU/ ITO, WARD - 42(1), MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2018-19 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 10, Mumbai [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 26.03.2024 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 31.05.2019. 1.1. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, the ld. D/R is present.

After hearing the ld. D/R, we have decided to dispose off this appeal on the material available on the record. On perusal of the ld. CIT(A)’s order, it I.T.A. No.: 1133/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Baidyanath Dham Enterprise. appears to us that appeal of the appellant has not been admitted on the ground that appellant has made incorrect submission in column no. 14 of Form No. 35 that there is no delay in filing the present appeal. We have perused the record and find that an order u/s 143(1) of the Act has been passed for the AY 2018-19 dated 31.05.2019. The ld. CIT(A) by not admitting the appeal has assigned the reason that on perusal of Form No. 35 appellant in column no. 2 has stated that he filed present appeal against the order dated 31.05.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act though the order was passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Further, the ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal on the ground that there was delay of 5 days in filing the appeal but in Form No. 35 the appellant has mentioned that there was no delay. On perusal of the ld. CIT(A)’s order it appears to us that appellant on receiving intimation with regard to the deficiency in Form No. 35 has submitted that due to the clerical mistake Section under which the assessment has been made has wrongly been written as Section 143(3) of the Act in place of Section 143(1) of the Act. We further find that he has also filed condonation of delay in filing of the memo of appeal and his condonation petition is as follows: