IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA)

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JM IT(SS)A Nos. 1, 2 to 7/GTY/2024 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 to 2017-18)

ITA No. 224/GTY/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

ACIT, Circle-3, Guwahati Mayurply Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Aaykar Bhavan, Christian N.H. 2(old Delhi Road), P.O.

Basti, G.S. Road, Room Belumiki, Sheoraphully, Vs.

No.705, 7^th Floor, Hooghly-712223, West Bengal Guwahati-781005, Assam (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. AABCT1308G Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Kaushik Roy, DR Date of hearing: 07.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 24.03.2025

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT (A)”] dated 10.06.2024, 11.06.2024, 12.06.2024, 13.08.2024, 14.08.2024, 30.09.2024 for the AYs 2010-11, 2012-13 to 2017-18, 2018-19 respectively.

02. At the outset, it was pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that there is a delay in filing these appeals for which condonation petitions were filed along with affidavit of Shri Prakash Kumar More son of Late Nauranglal More. We note that Shri Prakash Kumar More is Director of Mayurply Industries (P) Ltd. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 12.12.2017 and consequently, the assessments were framed for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2018-19. We note that the ld. CIT (A) passed the ex-parte orders in all the above- mentioned assessment years. It was submitted by the ld. AR that Shri Ravinder Sarwagi, CA, was handling the tax matter of the assessee and the assessee was under the belief that he was attending the taxation matters before the tax authorities. The ld. counsel submitted that it was only when enquired about the status of the appeals from the counsel in October, 2024, the assessee came to know about the appellate orders having been passed ex-parte. Immediately steps were taken to prepare the appeals by approaching the Counsel Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, advocate and finally, the appeals were filed on 01.11.2024 for which therewith a delay of 85 days in A.Y. 2010-11, 84 days in A.Y. 2012-13, 82 days in A.Y. 2013-14, 21 days in A.Y. 2014-15, A.Y. 2015-16 & 20 days in A.Y. 2016-17. The ld AR stated that in terms of provisions of Section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal has the power to admit the appeal even after expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (3) & (4) of Section 253 of the Act if the Tribunal is satisfied that there were sufficient causes and reasons for not presenting the appeals within the stipulated period. The Ld. A.R submitted that since the reasons attributable to late filing the appeal are beyond the control of the assessee, therefore in the interest of justice and fair play the appeal of the assessee may be admitted and adjudicated. In defense of argument the Ld. A.R relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors. [2010] 6SCC 786 (SC) and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 1987 taxmann.com 1072 (SC) . Finally the Ld. A.R prayed that the appeal may be admitted for hearing. In our opinion, the assessee has to be heard on merits and should not suffer for the negligence of the Chartered Accountant, who was handling the taxation issues. Moreover, the assessee is not benefited by delayed in filing of appeals in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that assessee appeals need to be admitted and adjudicated by condoning the delay as the assessee has explained the delay with reasons which in our view are cogent, sufficient and bonafide. Moreover, the case of the assessee find force from the decision of Supreme Court facts of in cases in the case of Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors. [supra) and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [supra).Ac