What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case.

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 104 days. The assessee contended that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders, denying a reasonable opportunity of being heard due to an employee's change of email ID.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities, justifying a de novo assessment.

Ashit Kumar Deb vs ITO | s.250 | ITAT Kolkata 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate

Hearing: 30/05/2024Pronounced: 31/05/2024

O R D E R

PER SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dt. 02/09/2022, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

At the time of hearing the registry has informed that the present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 104 days. The assessee prayed for condonation of the delay. The reasons are placed on record. We, after perusing the same as well as material available on record find merit in the reasonable cause stated by the assessee, which prevented him to file the appeal within the 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ashit Kumar Deb statutory time limit and also in the larger interest of justice, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that though the assessee has taken several grounds of appeal

, but his preliminary grievance is that both the ld. CIT(A) as well as the ld. Assessing Officer have passed an ex-parte orders. He submitted that if given an opportunity, the assessee stands a fair chance of succeeding on merits. He prayed for the matter to be restored to the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. D/R, though not leaving her grounds, did not oppose to this request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.

3. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee’s case has been adjudicated ex parte in both the appeal and assessment stage. The assessee specifically mentioned about the denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard. On a query from the Bench to explain the reasons behind such non-appearance before the authorities below, the ld. A/R stated that it has happened due to a change in the e-mail id by one of its engaged employee, provided while filing the return of income due to which all notices of hearing were sent to the incorrect e-mail id provided by the assessee’s employee Mr. Sunil Neogi and who did not communicate the assessee about the receipt of notice from time to time. Under these circumstances, we find that the assessee should get another opportunity to present its case Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ashit Kumar Deb

ASHIT KUMAR DEB,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-25(2), KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments