KARAN VIR SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. VEENA RANI, INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

There is a delay of 367 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the delay in filing the present Appeal occurred due to Bonafide reasons, including change of residence, change of tax consultant, non-receipt of the appellate order, and health related and mobility constraints faced by Assessee being a senior citizen. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeal on delay in latches.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee in the Application coupled with Affidavit for condonation of delay contended that the delay in filing the present Appeal occurred due to Bonafide reasons, including change of residence, change of tax consultant, non-receipt of the appellate order, and health related and mobility constraints faced by Assessee being a senior citizen.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 367 days in filing the present Appeal.

An assessment order came to be passed on 19/12/2018 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the order of the A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided on the grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee and the order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the order of the A.O. as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings. Even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment orderin accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.