https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313612 The ITAT Cuttack condoned a 627-day delay in filing an appeal, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without the assessee's knowledge, who only learned of it when penalty notices were issued. The assessee did not receive hearing notices or the CIT(A) order. The tribunal found no culpable negligence, noting the assessee was misled by previous counsel and citing COVID-19 pandemic considerations. Emphasizing substantial justice over technical considerations and violation of natural justice principles, the ITAT remitted the case back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Mon, 07 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Apr 2024 06:30:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313612 The ITAT Cuttack condoned a 627-day delay in filing an appeal, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without the assessee's knowledge, who only learned of it when penalty notices were issued. The assessee did not receive hearing notices or the CIT(A) order. The tribunal found no culpable negligence, noting the assessee was misled by previous counsel and citing COVID-19 pandemic considerations. Emphasizing substantial justice over technical considerations and violation of natural justice principles, the ITAT remitted the case back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313612