RAMESHWAR NISHAD, BHILAI,BHILAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

आदेश / ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

2. At the very outset, it is noted that as per Para 5.2 of the respective orders for both the years, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeals on the ground of delay and that there is no explanation furnished by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority for such condonation in terms with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). That so far the appeal of the assessee in is concerned, there is a delay of 712 days before the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. Similarly, so far the appeal of the assessee in 545 days before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.

3 Rameshwar Nishad Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bhilai & 45/RPR/2026 principles of natural justice and therefore, had been accorded one final opportunity to explain the reasons for such delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. That as evident in both these appeals, as per Para 5.2 of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC’s order, there is no explanation and justification given by the assessee for such delay and therefore, following the principles of natural justice and consistency, I set-aside the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matters back to its file directing the assessee to explain the reason for such delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act and the said authority on hearing submissions of the assessee shall first decide whether the said delay can be condoned or not and if it is condoned then it shall proceed to adjudicate the matters on merits and pass a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. The aforesaid direction shall apply in both the years of appeals.