Yatender Kumar Gupta HUF vs Income Tax Officer

PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the order dated 20.05.2023 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act for Assessment Year 2019-20.

The assessee has come up in appeal against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) which is admittedly an expert one. In fact the delay of 179 days in filing the said appeal by the assessee was also not considered and the appeal was dismissed due to limitation. it is the case of the assessee that the assessee duly submitted the reason for not been able to prefer the appeal in time. However, the same was not considered in its proper perspective and the appeal stood dismissed. Even before us the appeal is found to be barred by limitation for about 654 days in support of which an application for condonation of delay has been filed on 07.09.20 and the reasons assigned therein the filing the appeal belatedly seems to be genuine and therefore such delay in preferring the appeal before us is condoned.

The reason assigned by the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld. CIT(A) is also found to be acceptable and therefore such delay is hereby condoned. However, having regard to the principle of natural justice and in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice we are disposing of this appeal by setting aside the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the same afresh upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.