T K THAMPI,KAKKANAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), KOCHI

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Assessing authority has done in justice by completing the assessment without giving an opportunity to produce further evidences as directed by him.

On the other hand, the learned D.R. relied on the orders passed by the Revenue authorities.

We have heard the parties and have also perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. From the records we find that there was a delay of one day in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, it was pointed out through notices dated 03.09.2021, 08.10.2021 and 18.10.2021 about this discrepancy of delay in filing the appeal. However, 3 Shri T.K. Thampi the same had not been complied with by the assessee. On this aspect the assessee submitted that he did not really notice this mention as the said mention was on the back side of the notice. Therefore, neither the assessee nor his representative could notice the annexure to the notice of hearing, and it was also submitted that had the assessee been aware of such delay, he would have filed a petition for condonation of delay then and there. Further, after considering the arguments at length, we are of the view that although sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee as mentioned in para 3 of the order of the learned CIT(A), thereby pointed out the said discrepancy of delay in filing the appeal. But, the same could not be complied with by the assessee bonafidely as according to the assessee he could not notice the said discrepancy as the same was mentioned on the back side of the said notice. Therefore, considering this fact, the Bench is not in agreement with the argument of the assessee that sufficient opportunity was not provided to the assessee. However, considering the interest of equity and justice, the Bench feels that since the grounds raised by the assessee could not be decided on merits by the learned CIT(A), we are of the view that the grounds raised by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) needs afresh consideration by the learned CIT(A). At the same time we are of the view that since the assessee was deprived of hearing the case on merits before the CIT(A), therefore, by taking a lenient view and also keeping in view the interest of justice, equity and fair play, one more chance is given to the assessee to substantiate its case before he CIT(A) by submitting necessary application for seeking of condonation/ evidences, etc. Therefore, under these circumstances we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after taking into consideration the application for condonation of delay or documents, if any, filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) by providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Before parting we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) may in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which 4 Shri T.K. Thampi shall be adjudicated by the learned CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. At the same time the assessee is also directed to cooperate with First Appellate Authority and also will not seek unnecessary adjournments on frivolous grounds.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to cost.