AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is time barred by 113 days, for which a request for condoning the said delay has been filed in column no.11 of Form 36 as under:
“Whether there is any delay in filing of appeal. (If yes, please attach application seeking condonation of delay)
Yes, “I Kaunain Ahmad aged 62 years, am the Trustee of the Personal Injury Trust for Rameez Ahmad and authorized to file this Appeal and request for condonation of delay. This trust was established to cover the medical and personal care expenses of my son, who has been incapacitated due to an accident. I was unable to file the appeal on time because I am myself not in good health and also occupied with attending to my son and providing him with the necessary care, which, despite engaging round the clock attendants, is a fulltime job”, I therefore, humbly request for condonation of delay in filing this appeal.
Considering the reasons given for the delay, we hereby condone the same and admit this appeal for adjudication.
This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) dated 16.01.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the assessee is registered as an AOP/BOI. During the year under consideration, the case was picked up for scrutiny for verifying a deduction of Rs.67,26,542/- u/s 57 of the Act and also for verifying an investment of Rs.3,40,00,000/-. It is seen that neither before the Ld. AO nor before the Ld. CIT(A) was there any compliance to the notices issued by the authorities below. Needless to say, the action of Ld. AO was confirmed at first appeals stage, leading to the present appeal.
The Ld. AR mentioned that the person looking after the affairs of this assessee is the father of Shri Rameez Ahmad. It was the submission that due to his poor health and involvement with round the clock care of his injured son, he was not able to attend to the proceedings before the lower authorities. It was prayed that one more chance may be given to the assessee for presenting the facts.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have carefully considered the documents before us and have gone through the details filed through a paper book running to 65 pages. It is felt that in the interests of substantive justice and also considering the reasons given for non-compliance before the authorities below, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.