SRI SAI BALAJI TRANSPORT,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060433914(1) dated 02.02.2024, arising out of order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 29.03.2022 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) with the delay of 98 days and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, observing that the delay of 98 days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no “sufficient cause” is attributed as prescribed u/s 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessee’s failure to file the appeal within the stipulated period of limitation u/s Sri Sai Balaji Transport, Kakinada 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal :

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant did not file any petition for condonation of delay. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant duly informing the defect. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the failure to file the delay condonation petition was only due to inadvertence. 5. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.

The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not file any petition for condonation of delay. The Ld.AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was neither intentional nor deliberate and the assessee would not gain anything by filing the appeal belatedly. The Ld.AR further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have informed the defect to the assessee and given

Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee failed to adduce sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A), hence, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee as time barred. The Ld.DR therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B and the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.4,47,74,530/-. On appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee did not file any petition for condonation of delay. As contended by the Ld.AR the Ld.CIT(A) treated the appeal filed by the assessee as time barred on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the delay in filing appeal with sufficient cause and pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Sri Sai Balaji Transport, Kakinada Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present it’s case. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued by the revenue authorities and cooperate during the proceedings.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.