IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH B , KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, AM & HONBL E SRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM] ITA NO.1084/KOL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) M/S.N.P.& COMPANY -VS- I.T.O., WARD-33(3) KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:AAEFN 0952 C) FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI P.B.PRAMANIK, JCIT(SR.DR) DATE OF HEARING : 12.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14. 02.2014. ORDER PER SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T(A)-XX, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.69/CIT(A)-XX/WD-33(3)/2009/KOL DATED 11.05.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI P.B.PRAMANIK, JCIT, SR.DR REPRESENTED ON BEH ALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS DELAYED BY NEARLY 215 DAYS AS THE PA RTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHO WAS DEALING IN THE ACCOUNTS MATTERS WAS SUFFERING F ROM EYE PROBLEM. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD NOT CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND HAD DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISS ION THAT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) MAY BE CONDONE D. IN REPLY THE DR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 24 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK W HICH WAS THE COPY OF THE SUMMARY DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE IN THE CASE OF THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM SHRI DINESH JAGWANI. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S ADMITTED IN K.D.CURE ON ITA NO.1084/KOL/2012 M/S.N.P.&COMPANY A.YR.2006-07 2 24.09.2008 AND WAS ALSO OPERATED ON 24.09.2008 AND DISCHARGED ON 25.09.2008. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEES EYE PROBLEM WAS NOT A SERIOUS ISSUE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERU SAL OF PAGE 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR SHOWS THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS ADMITTED ON 24.09.2008, OPERATED ON 24.09.2008 AND WAS DISCHARG ED ON 25.09.2008. HOWEVER, A FURTHER PERUSAL SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BE EN ADVISED BED REST IN SO FAR AS THE ISSUE WAS IN RESPECT OF RETINAL DETACHMENT. FURTHER IT IS NOTICED IN PAGE 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ADMITTED ON 24.01. 2009 AND OPERATED AGAIN ON 24.01.2009 AND AGAIN ADMITTED ON 11.05.2009 AND OPE RATED ON 11.05.2009. FURTHER PAGE 21 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD THEN SHIFTED TH E TREATMENT FROM KOLKATA TO SANKARA NETHRALAYA, CHENNAI AND AGAIN TREATED ON 27 .05.2009 TO 29.05.2009 AND AGAIN ADVISED BED REST FOR THREE WEEKS. ALL THESE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE DID HAVE SERIOUS MEDICAL EYE PROBLEMS. THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF T HE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND C ONSEQUENTLY WE CONDONE THE DELAY. THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE MERITS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14.02.2014. SD/- SD/- [ABRAHAM P.GEORGE] [ GEORGE MATHAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 14.02.2014. R.G.(.P.S.) ITA NO.1084/KOL/2012 M/S.N.P.&COMPANY A.YR.2006-07 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S.N.P.&COMPANY, 1, SHYAMA CHARAN SMRITI TIRTHA RO AD, KOLKATA-700053. 2 I.T.O., WARD-33(3), KOLKATA. 3 . CIT(A)-XX, KOLKATA. 4. C IT - KOLKATA. 5. CIT(A)DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES