Appeal delay excused, CIT (A) order reversed, fresh disposal ordered for fair opportunity.

The Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to pursuing a miscellaneous application. The appeal raised questions of law regarding the reversal of the CIT (A) order and the failure to consider the plenary power of the CIT (A). The Assessing Officer's assessment order was scrutinized, leading to appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for insufficient verification and granted relief without proper evidence. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, directing a fresh disposal to ensure a fair opportunity for both parties.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal; Questions of law raised by the assessee; Assessment order by the Assessing Officer; Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals); Tribunal's observations on the Commissioner (Appeals) decision; Tribunal's findings and reasoning; Court's analysis and decision.

Delay in filing the appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 242 days, attributing it to pursuing a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application on 5 August 2014. The Court condoned the delay, considering the appellant's bona fide pursuit of the application.

Questions of law raised by the assessee:
The assessee raised two questions of law regarding the reversal of the CIT (A) order by the ITAT and the justification for not considering the plenary power of the CIT (A) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These questions formed the basis of the appeal.

Assessment order by the Assessing Officer:
The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Act on 22 December 2010, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 18.24 lacs. The order detailed the proceedings and interactions with the assessee during the assessment period.

Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals):
The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on the remand report, which led to further appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal.

Tribunal's observations on the Commissioner (Appeals) decision:
The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for not verifying the books and records or providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to do so. It highlighted that the relief granted to the assessee was based on inadequate evidence and lack of proper verification.

Tribunal's findings and reasoning:
The Tribunal found fault with the Commissioner (Appeals) for allowing the appeal without proper verification of books and records. It emphasized the importance of providing the Assessing Officer with an opportunity to verify the evidence presented by the assessee.

Court's analysis and decision:
The Court reviewed the Tribunal's findings and agreed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not conducted a thorough examination before allowing the appeal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order but directed the proceedings to be restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh disposal. This decision aimed to ensure a fair opportunity for both the assessee and the Department to present their cases adequately. The Court allowed the appeal in part, confirming the Tribunal's decision but directing a fresh disposal by the Commissioner (Appeals).

---