M/S KREENG CONSTRUCTION,PURULIA vs. I.T.O WD - 3(3),PURILIA, PURULIA

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee from the impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the representative duly authorized by the assessee had & 1275/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 2 of 3 appeared before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the merits of the case was also discussed. As further pointed out by him, the penalty orders, as per information furnished by the assessee in Form No. 35, were received on 16.07.2010. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, noted that the said orders, as per the records with the Assessing Officer, were received by the assessee on 01.06.2010 and since there was a delay on the part of the assessee in filing its appeals before the ld. CIT(Appeals) going by the said date and there was no petition filed by the assessee for condonation of the said delay, he dismissed the said appeals in limine treating the same as barred by limitation. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the aspect of so-called delay in filing the appeals thus was not pointed out by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee giving him an opportunity to explain his stand or to seek the condonation of delay, if any, and this position, which is clearly evident from the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals), could not be disputed even by the ld. D.R. We, therefore, consider it just and proper to set aside the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matters back to him with a direction to consider the same afresh after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.

In the result, the appeals of the assesese are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on March 04, 2016.