Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 17/09/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16.
In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:
– “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals was justified in affirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer making an addition of Rs.41,21,152 upon the appellant.
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals was justified in dismissing the appeal as filed belated when the assessment order itself was serviced late to the appellant.
3. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground at the time of hearing of this case.”
G.R. Jaiswal Shop ITA no.380/Nag./2023 2. When the case was called for hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 29 days in filing the present appeal filed by the assessee. While going through the record available before us, I find that the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. As stated by the assessee in its application, there were some technical faults in the official website of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the said faults have been brought to the notice of the ITAT Registry and due to the administrative delay in rectifying the technical fault, the appeal could not be filed within the due date by the assessee. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the assessee is prevented in filing the appeal belatedly and I am satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, I hereby condone the delay of 29 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit.
Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).
On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunities inspite of that the assesse has not appeared before the learned CIT(A) and not filed relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).
I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. I find that though the learned CIT(A) gave opportunities to the assessee, ultimately, the order
G.R. Jaiswal Shop ITA no.380/Nag./2023 passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one more opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate his case before the learned CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/08/2024