MR RAMSOCH DASHRATH YADAV,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(4), PUNE, PUNE

short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1063104351(1), dated 21.03.2024, in proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2 ITA.No.1048/PUN./2024 days in filing the appeal before it and therefore, the CIT(A)- NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the said ground alone. Shri Arvind Desai could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the Assessing Officer had framed his impugned assessment on 17.12.2019 and the assessee preferred his first appeal on 24.05.2022. Meaning thereby, that the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has included Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak period from between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, which period duly excluded by their lordships’ in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314, for all intents and purposes under the limitation law. And also that the CIT(A)-NFAC’s order has nowhere decided the assessee’s substantive grounds on merits as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof.

Faced with the situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)-NFAC; after condoning the above delay, for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

3 ITA.No.1048/PUN./2024