Shashi Jain vs Ward-2(2)(1)

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.01.2024 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT (A), Ghaziabad/10524/2018-19 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 18.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17.

At the time of hearing, none attended on behalf of the assessee however, revenue is represented by ld. Sr. DR. Therefore, the appeal was decided on the basis of material available on record in the absence of assessee.

It is observed that the appeal was filed delayed by 555 days. Before us, an application for condonation of delay was filed duly supported by the affidavit of the assessee. In the said petition, it is stated that the assessee is a senior citizen and is not well-versed in the intricacies of income tax law and has relied on professional assistance for the conduct of her tax matters. The assessee engaged a consultant to represent her case before the Ld. CIT(A) however, the consultant discontinued the assignment without prior notice or any formal communication to the assessee. This has caused a significant delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, as the assessee was unaware of the adverse order passed against her by the Ld. CIT(A). It is submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor willful and due to the circumstances beyond her control, therefore, it is requested to condone the delay.

Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR opposed to the request of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Having considered the arguments of both the parties. We find that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 555 days. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapses on the part of the litigant concerned however, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against her. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of appeal on merit ought not to be rejected. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, delay in filling the appeal is hereby, condoned and appeal of the assessee is taken for adjudication on merits.

Heard the Ld. Sr. DR at length and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has provided as many as Six opportunities however, assessee has failed to make compliance merely sought adjournments. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

Since the assessee has not complied with the notices of hearing issued and had not filed any submission and appeal is dismissed for want of non-prosecution, thus looking to entirety of the facts and in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the same to the file of CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate and file necessary details before the Ld. CIT(A) in support of the grounds of appeal taken. With these directions, all the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes