AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 20.11.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”). In this case, there was a delay of 79 days in the filing of first appeal which was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A).
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds which challenge the action of the Ld. CIT(A).
On the last date of hearing, none attended on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR.
The Ld. DR took us through the impugned order and also the statement of facts appended with Form 36, in which it has been stated that the assessee under wrong advice had obtained a second PAN for the purposes of savings bank account with Punjab National Bank. Thereafter on the advice of the tax consultant this PAN bearing No. ADSFS6622F was surrendered but an assessment, nonetheless, was carried out on this PAN. The Ld. DR pointed out that as per the assessee’s contention they were unaware that some proceedings were progressing on the basis of the surrendered PAN. It was fairly pointed out by the Ld. DR that the facts in the case would need verification at Ld. AO’s level.
We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. DR and have gone through the records before us. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, it is felt that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay before him and admitted the appeal for adjudication. Thus, we deem it fit to condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A), set aside the impugned order and thereafter remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.