Arvind vs ITO

PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 23.09.2024 for the A.Y. 2011-12.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that this appeal is filed with delay of 241 days and a petition alognwith affidavit was filed by the assessee explaining the delay in filing the appeal.

Referring to the condonation petition the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee is not well versed with the income tax proceedings and the assessee had never received physical copy of the appellate order in person or through postal services. The order was sent electronically through e-mail Id of Authorized Representative of the assessee and the e-mail address provided by him i.e., [email protected].

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was under bonafide belief that first appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC was still pending for decision and order will be received by him through postal services or through his counsel. The Assessee came to the knowledge of the fact about the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) which was passed on 23.09.2024, when the assessee got the information from the Income Tax department to deposit tax demand pending against him. On knowing that the appeal of the assessee was disposed off by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee immediately approached CA Sanjeev Jain for filing an appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly appeal was electronically filed on 29.07.2025 resulting in 241 days delay. Therefore, it is submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate and delay occurred for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee.

Heard rival submissions. On hearing both the sides and perusing the petition for condonation of delay and affidavit filed by the assessee we find that the assessee was prevented with reasonable cause in filing the appeal with the delay of 241 days and thus the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Coming to the merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal was disposed of exparte by the Ld. CIT(A) without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Considering the rival submissions we are of the view that this appeal should go back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issues afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.