Faheem Ahmed vs Income Tax Officer Ward 3(5), Deoband

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 28.10.2022, for Assessment Year 2012-13.

As per objection memo issued by the Registry, the appeal is time barred by 75 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 75 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against in ex-parte order of CIT(A). A the CIT(A), however, there was no response from the assessee’s side. Thus, the CIT(A) vide impugned order upheld the addition and dismissed appeal of the assessee.

Orders of lower authorities examined. A perusal of impugned order shows that the CIT(A) in an ex-parte proceedings has dismissed appeal of the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that because of assessee’s prolonged illness and repeated admission to the hospital he could not pursue appeal before the CIT(A). He prayed for an opportunity to make submissions before the lower authorities. I find that even, the assessment order has been passed by the AO invoking provisions of section 144 of the Act as there was no compliance by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO.

Considering facts of the case and in the interest of justice, matter is restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) issued by the AO, without fail.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.