Suchitra Raghunath Kamble ORDER
Annapurna Gupta, Member (A)
1. Present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "Ld.CIT(A)"] under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) dated 30.12.2022 pertaining to the Asst. Year 2017-18.
2. At the beginning of hearing, it is noted that the Registry has noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 59 days. To explain the delay, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating among other that, the delay was caused mainly because of omission on the part of her consultant in not attending the proceedings before the ld.CIT(A) and not complying with various notices issued by the Department from time to time. The assessee was not aware of the appellate proceedings and the outcome thereof, and because registered email id was of her consultant, the fate of the appellate proceedings was not in the knowledge of the assessee. The ld.counsel for the assessee therefore submitted that the assessee on getting the appellate order, immediately approached another consultant, and filed the present appeal, and in the meanwhile, the delay of 59 days was occurred, which is genuine and justifiable to condone, and to take up appeal of the assessee for adjudication on merits. On the other hand, the ld.DR objected to condone the delay in filing the present appeal, as the assessee had remained absence continuously both before the AO and the ld.CIT(A), despite repeated opportunities having been given, and such non-serious and dormant litigant deserve no leniency in law, and therefore, condonation of the impugned delay is to be rejected.
3. After hearing both the sides, we find from the affidavit of the assessee that the impugned delay of 59 days caused mainly due to inaction on the part of the assessee's earlier consultant in attending the proceedings before the first appellate authority or complying with the various notices issued to the assessee. The assessee was not kept abreast of the appellate proceedings by her earlier consultant, and when ultimately the CIT(A)'s order reached at the address of the assessee, she came to the knowledge of the same. The assessee immediately engaged another advocate and filed the present appeal before the ITAT, and in the process, 59 days of delay was caused in filing the appeal. We find, the reasons attributed by the assessee for the impugned delay, is justifiable and unintentional so as to condone the delay of 59 days, because the assessee is gaining nothing by not filing the appeal in time before the Tribunal. On the other hand, if the appeal is not filed before the Tribunal, then the assessee shall be fastened with huge tax and penalty in view of nature of addition made under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. Therefore, to meet ends of justice, we condone the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, and proceed to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on merit.
4. The grounds raised in the appeal reads as under:
"1. On the facts and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the Assessment Order passed by the ITO u/s 144 despite the Appellant had made full and true submission during the course of hearing to justify the Cash Deposits vide letter dated 28.06.2019.
2. The CIT(A) has erred in passing the Appellate Order u/s 250 without providing adequate Opportunity of being heard/ short hearing Notices and thereby violated the principle of Audi alteram partem. The Order passed u/s 250 by the CIT (A) needs to be quashed and/or the matter needs to be restored for adjudication before the CIT(A) I........