Appeal delay excused for NRI in Canada due to COVID-19 impact. CIT(A) to decide on appeal merits.

The delay in filing the appeal by the NRI assessee based in Canada was condoned by the Tribunal due to reasons beyond their control, including non-service of notices and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the CIT(A) to decide on the merits of the appeal even in the absence of the assessee's participation. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Non-compliance and ex-parte order by CIT(A).
3. Condonation of delay and hearing on merits.

Summary:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)-43, New Delhi's order dated 04/09/2018, with a delay of 622 days. The delay was attributed to reasons beyond the control of the assessee, an NRI based in Canada, including non-service of notices, non-receipt of the appellate order, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Non-Compliance and Ex-Parte Order by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee. Notices for hearings on 06.07.2018 and 25.07.2018 were allegedly sent via email and speed post, but the assessee claimed not to have received them at the address mentioned in Form 35. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution without deciding on the merits.

3. Condonation of Delay and Hearing on Merits:
The Tribunal examined the reasons for the delay, including the affidavit submitted by the assessee, which stated non-receipt of notices and appellate order, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not in India during the relevant period and that there was no culpable negligence or malafide intent. The delay was condoned in the interest of substantial justice, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee's participation. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring a fair opportunity for the assessee to present his case.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive for timely completion of proceedings and ensuring the assessee's participation. The Registry was instructed to serve a copy of the order to the assessee and his authorized representative.

---