In the recent case, the Cuttack bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remanded the appeal by the assessee against the Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appelas)[CIT(A)]’s order after condoning a 69-day delay. The tribunal noted non-compliance and lack of documentation in the CIT(A)’s order and provided the assessee another chance to be heard. The appeal was partially allowed for statistical purposes.
Harichandanpur LAMPS, the appellant-assessee, filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)],National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),dated 23.01.2024 for the assessment year(AY) 2017-2018.
The tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee. Although the assessee had filed an adjournment request, the reason provided was not acceptable, and thus, the adjournment application was rejected.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Refunds (Law & Procedure) , Click here
A delay of 69 days was seen in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, citing sufficient reasons. The Departmental representative raised no serious objection to the condonation. Consequently, the tribunal condoned the delay of 69 days and proceeded to dispose off the appeal.
Section 235(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows the tribunal to admit an appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A)’s order indicated a lack of compliance by the assessee during the appeal process, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Additionally, the assessment order showed that the assessee did not provide supporting documentation.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Refunds (Law & Procedure) , Click here
The bench stated that, to ensure fairness and allow the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case, the tribunal decided to send the issues back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
A single bench consisting of George Mathan (Judicial Member) partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
