Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 23.02.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 07.12.2018 passed by learned ITO-2(3), Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2016-17, the assessee has filed this appeal.
Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case-records perused.
The registry has informed that there is a delay of 31 days in filing this appeal and therefore the appeal is time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee
Shri Ajit Khandelwal, Bhopal v.. ITO,2(3),Bhopal submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. Drawing our attention to the facts cited therein and prayer made by assessee, Ld. AR submitted that the income-tax matters of assessee were dealt by erstwhile counsel and the log-in ID and password of assessee for visiting Income-tax Portal were also with erstwhile counsel. Further, the erstwhile counsel mentioned his own phone number and e-mail id in Form No. 35 filed before CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee neither received notices of hearings fixed by CIT(A) nor the impugned order passed by CIT(A). Subsequently, the assessee was informed on 15.05.2023 about passing of order of impugned order. The assessee is still facing difficulty in getting documents as the erstwhile counsel is not willing to part with the assessee. Ld. AR submitted that as soon as the assessee came to know of passing of impugned order, the arrangement was made to file this appeal immediately without further delay. Ld. AR submitted that the delay has been caused due to this reason only and there is no deliberate lethargy, negligence or mala fide intention of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. Therefore, Ld. AR prays to condone the delay. Ld. DR left the matter to the wisdom of Bench. We have considered the explanation of assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387, we take a judicious view; condone delay and proceed with appeal.
With the able assistance of learned Representatives of both sides, we have perused the impugned order and it is found that the CIT(A) has basically upheld the assessment-order passed by AO for the reason of non- representation of assessee before him. As noted in preceding paragraph, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not receive notices of hearings fixed by CIT(A) which prevented him from representing case before CIT(A). Therefore, in the situation, Ld. AR prayed to grant one more opportunity to Shri Ajit Khandelwal, Bhopal v.. ITO,2(3),Bhopal CIT(A) which would meet the end of justice and fair play. Ld. DR too agreed to this proposal but prayed to direct the assessee to represent his case before CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
In view of fair congruence of parties, we remand this case to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after giving opportunity to assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25.10.2023.