RAKESH KUMAR ,BHILAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1) ,BHILAI , BHILAI

ITA 457/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Rakesh Kumar against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi, which were based on the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals were consolidated due to common facts and issues. The primary contention was the dismissal of the appeals by the CIT(Appeals) due to a delay of 192 days in filing, which the assessee attributed to the negligence of his previous counsel. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted out of email communications and had not received physical notices, leading to his inability to participate in the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on the condonation of delay after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36562 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Majji Sannemma & Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi & Others, Esha Bhattarcharjee Vs. Management Committee of Raghunathpurnafar
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHAL AGRAWAL; MEANS OF
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH SETHIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 147; 148; 192; 271(1)(c); 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Rakesh Kumar Ward No.36, Jagir Chowk, New Khursipar, Bhilai Durg (C.G.)-490 028 PAN: BBTPK4928E .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sethia, CA Revenue by : Shri Mohal Agrawal, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 19.11.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024 2 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 19.08.2024, which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 22.09.2022 for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16. As the facts and issues involved in the captioned appeals are common, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.456/RPR/2024 for assessment year 2014-15, wherein the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred dismissing the appeal violating the provisions of Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 without proper opportunity for submissions for delay in filing of appeal the order of Ld. Commissioner of Appeal is against the principals of Natural Justice. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal under section 271(1)(c) during the pendency of order for appeal filed against order under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. 3 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming imposition of penalty of Rs.55,26,702/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4) The appellant reserves the right to addition, after or omit all or any of the grounds of appeal in the interest of justice.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 09.10.2014, declaring an income of Rs.2,49,520/-. Subsequently, the A.O based on information that there were total credits of Rs.1.61 crore in the current account No.018605500457 and 1815550142 held by the assessee during the subject year with ICICI Bank Ltd., reopened his case u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2021 was issued by the A.O. 4. As the assessee had failed to file return of income in compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act, therefore, the A.O proceeded with the assessment on an ex-parte basis, and vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 26.03.2022 after treating the credits in the bank account of Rs.1,62,58,110/- as the undisclosed receipts in the hands of the assessee, determined his income at Rs.1,65,07,630/-. The A.O while framing the assessment initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 5. After culmination of the assessment proceedings, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 22.09.2022 imposed a penalty of Rs.55,26,702/- upon the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 22.09.2022 before the CIT(Appeals). As the appeal filed by the assessee involved a delay of 192 days, therefore, an application seeking condonation of the aforesaid said delay was filed by the assessee a/w. the memorandum of appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) did not find favour with the same. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(Appeals) wherein he had declined to condone the delay of 192 days involved in the appeal filed by the assessee before him are culled out as under: “3.1. At the time of filing of appeal, the appellant had applied for condonation of delay by stating the following in the Form No. 35: \"REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY: The assessee is an insignificantly educated person and is engaged in trading of vegetables (copy of Gomasta License is enclosed). Being a law abiding citizen, he is regularly filing his returns of income (cones of returns enclosed). In view of his absence of knowledge of the income-tax matters, he had engaged a person named Mr. Sajid Pasha (having a chamber in Dhillon Complex, Supela, Bhilai, Dist : Durg (CG)) who has impressed upon the assessee that he has comprehensive knowledge of Income-tax matters and would attend all the matters relating to Income-tax on behalf of the assessee. Thus, the assessee handed over Bank Statement/Pass Book explaining the transactions therein, details regarding Sales, Purchase and expenditure and asked him to files returns and attend all matters relating to income- tax on his behalf. It may be appreciated here that Mr. Sajid Pasha has quoted also his own e-mail address for 5 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 communication in the returns for the A.Y. under consideration (evident is enclosed). It is, therefore, that the assessee was totally unaware of proceedings under section 147 and later penalty proceedings initiated age, him since all the relevant notices issued to the assessee were received on e-address of Mr Sajid Pasha. It was only on receipt of the various order passed by the Income-tax authorities through post on 31/08/2022 a 30/09/2022, the assessee come to know that. said Mr. Sajid Pasha did even bothered to inform .the assessee regarding the initiation of b proceedings and outcome thereof Being a modestly educated person, i immediately contacted Mr. Sajid Pasha to understand the context of the order so received by him through post and having an evasive replies from him, the assessee took resort of engaging a new counsel for attending the income-ta proceedings. It took a considerable time to find out suitable counsel. Now the assessee has engaged CA Arvind .Chand Surana & CA Saket Jain a. counsels (Power of Attorney enclosed). Now, with the help and guidance a the new counsels the assessee, he is filing appeals with a request for condone the delay in filing the appeals which is not attributable to the assessee's fault. It is a settled position of law that the mistake committed by the counselor should not be detrimental to the assessee. In ITA No.1860/Ko1/20094 Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata has emphasized this principal which also prevalent in the present case of the assessee. Hon'ble ITAT has opined as under: \"After hearing both the parties, perusing the material available on record and the orders of the lower authorities, we find that the assessee had sufficient cause for non- compliance as the Authorised Representative of the assessee Mr. D. Roy did not represent the case properly. Therefore the assessee went to the extent of changing his counsel and engaged another person namely Mr. H. Ghosh. This shows that assessee was aware of his responsibility to make compliance before the I. T. Authorities and there was bonafide reasons for not doing so due to the failure of his earlier Authorized Representative. Since the assessee changed his counsel and then made compliance before the AO, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levying penalty for non-compliance and the penalty imposed by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A)„ is, therefore, deleted. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed.\" The principal laid down by the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. is also applicable in the case of the assessee since he has also, after 6 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 perceiving that his previous counsel has made some grave mistakes in filing of return and also in not attending the proceedings, changed his counsel. This shows that the assessee was ready to discharge his legal duties but was prevented by a reasonable cause. In light of the above submissions, it is humbly requested to consider the application and condone the delay in the case of the assessee who was prevented by above narrated genuine and reasonable cause in filing appeals within the stipulated time.\" 3.2 As could be seen from Form No.35, the date of service of Order/Notice of Demand was 30.09.2022 whereas the appeal was filed on 09.05.2023. Statutorily, the appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of Notice of Demand i.e., on or before 30.10.2022-iri this case. Hence, there is a delay of 192 days in filing of appeal. 3.3 Section 119(2)(b) of the Act provides for condonation of delay of any application or claims filed under the Act. The CBDT will authorize income tax authorities to accept any application or claim if it considers it to be expedient to do so to avoid genuine hardship of the party. The income tax authority will allow the' delayed claim, provided, making the claim within the prescribed due date was genuinely out of the control of the taxpayer. 3.4 In the present case, there was a delay of 192 days in filing the appeal stating that the appellant was unaware of penalty proceedings and has not received any communication during the proceedings as the same was being sent to the mail of counselor engaged by the appellant. On receiving the penalty orders through postal service on 30.09.2022, the appellant up- receiving evasive replies from the above counsel took resort of engaging new counsel to represent his case. The reasons brought in before me for the delay caused found to be unrealistic since, the appellant himself confirmed in Form-35 that the service of the impugned order was done on 30.09.2022 and the explanation is not convincing either. The delay of 192 days in filing appeal due to negligence on part of the appellant, he should have approached the new counsel at a correct time to avoid the delay in filing. I hold that the reasons mentioned by the appellant were not genuine and valid as no proper evidence in support of it has been adduced. The appellant needs to provide a genuine and valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal. This could be due to circumstances beyond - 7 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 the control of appellant, such as illness and natural disasters, even for that also need to be substantiated with evidence. For the exercise of discretion in condoning the delay, it must be established beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant was diligent and was not guilty of negligence on its part. An application of condonation should not be acceptable unless and until the applicant satisfies the authority that he was prevented by a sufficient cause while doing so. Further, longer delays may require more compelling reasons and evidence to be condoned. The reasons mentioned by the appellant do not suffice the delay to be condoned. Thus, the delay is not condoned. 3.5 Reliance is placed on the following case law to discuss the delay in filing the appeal. 1. MajjiSannemma & Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi& Others: Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Majji Sannemina & Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi & Others in Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2021 dated 16th 2021 while reversing the order of the Hon'ble A.P High Court at Amaravati at Para 6.1 and 6.2 of the order has observed as under: 6. At the outset, it is noted that by the impugned order the High Court has condoned a huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – original defendants – appellants before the High Court. While condoning the delay, the High Court has observed as under: “In these circumstances, when there are certain questions, which require a debate in the second appeal, it is not necessary that this matter be rejected at this stage, without inviting a decision on merits. lf the delay is condoned though enormous, what happens at best is to give an opportunity to the parties to canvass their respective case. Since this question being of procedure, the attempt of the court should be to encourage a healthy discussion on merits than rejecting at threshold. Viewed from such perspective, accepting the reasons assigned by the petitioner, the delay in presenting this second appeal should be condoned. Apparently, there is no wilful negligence on the part of the petitioners nor this attempt suffers from want of due diligence. It appears being a bonafide attempt on the part of the petitioners to canvass their claim particularly when the trial court had accepted their plea, which was subjected to reversal by the appellate court. However, the petitioners should compensate the respondent by means of costs for this delay. The contention of the respondent that 8 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 valuable rights are accrued to her on account of inaction of the petitioners in failing to prefer the Second Appeal within time, cannot be a significant factor in the backdrop of the circumstances found in this case. In the result, this petition is allowed condoning the delay of 1011 days in filing the second appeal subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/ (Rupees Two thousand only) to the learned counsel for the respondent on or before 05.10.2021.” Thus from the aforesaid, it can be seen that the High Court has not observed that any sufficient cause explaining the huge delay of 1011 days has been made out. 6.1 The High Court has observed that if the delay is condoned no prejudice will be caused to the appellant as the appeal would be heard on merits. The High Court has also observed that there is no wilful negligence on the part of the respondents herein nor it suffers from want of due diligence. However, from the averments in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that it was a case of a gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on the part of the respondents herein – appellants before the High Court in filing such a belated appeal. 6.2 We have gone through the averments in the application for the condonation of delay. There is no sufficient explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was preferred in the year 2021. In the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that she is aged 45 years and was looking after the entire litigation and that she was suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from 01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 and she was advised to take bed rest for the said period. However, there is no explanation for the period after 15.03.2017. Thus, the period of delay from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2021 has not at all been explained. Therefore, the High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously. 14. Finally at Para 8 & 9 of the order has observed as under: 8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that as such no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – appellants before the High Court for condonation of huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. The High Court is not at all justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge delay. The 9 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously. The reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane. Therefore, the High Court has erred in condoning the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – original defendants. Impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeal is Allowed. The impugned order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the High Court condoning the delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, Second Appeal No.331 of 2021 preferred by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein stands dismissed on the ground of delay. The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” 2. Esha Bhattarcharjee Vs. Management Committee of Raghunathpurnafar in Civil Appeal Nos. 8183 & 8184 dated 13.09.2013 (SC) 22. At this juncture, we are obliged to state that the persons who are nominated or inducted as members or chosen as Secretaries of the managing committees of schools are required to behave with responsibility and not to adopt a casual approach. It is a public responsibility and anyone who is desirous of taking such responsibility has to devote time and act with due care and requisite caution. Becoming a member of the committee should not become a local status syndrome. A statutory committee cannot remain totally indifferent to an order passed by the court and sleep like “Kumbhakarna”. The persons chosen to act on behalf of the Managing Committee cannot take recourse to fancy and rise like a phoenix and move the court. Neither leisure nor pleasure has any room while one moves an application seeking condonation of delay of almost seven years on the ground of lack of knowledge or failure of justice. Plea of lack of knowledge in the present case really lacks bona fide. The Division Bench of the High Court has failed to keep itself alive to the concept of exercise of judicial discretion that is governed by rules of reason and justice. It should have kept itself alive to the following passage from N. Balakrishnan (supra): - “The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, 10 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.” We have painfully re-stated the same. 23. Ex consequenti, the appeals are allowed and the order passed by the Division Bench condoning delay is set aside…….” Thus, the condonation shall not be granted in this case too.” 7. Although the CIT(Appeals) had declined to condone the delay involved in filing of the appeal before him, but he thereafter taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee despite having been provided three opportunities in the proceedings before him i.e. on 12.07.2024, 30.07.2024 and 14.08.2024 had failed to participate in the same, thus, held a firm conviction that he was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) after declining to condone the delay involved in filing of the appeal dismissed the same for non-prosecution. 8. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material 11 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 10. Shri Yogesh Sethia, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee at the threshold submitted that the present appeals involve a delay of 1 day. It was fairly submitted by the Ld. AR that the delay involved in filing of the present appeal had occasioned for the reason that there was mistake while computing the period of limitation on the part the assessee’s counsel. 11. The Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay of 1 day involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant. 12. We have thoughtfully considered the reason leading to the delay of 1 day involved in filing of the captioned appeals before us, and considering the fact that the same is not inordinate and is backed by justifiable reason, therefore, the same in all fairness is condoned. 13. Shri Yogesh Sethia, Ld. AR submitted that the failure on the part of the assessee to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals) had occasioned for no fault on his part. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in memorandum of appeal filed before the 12 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 CIT(Appeals) i.e. “Form 35”, had specifically opted out of service of notice/communications from the office of the CIT(Appeals) through email. The Ld. AR in order to buttress his aforesaid contention had drawn our attention to “Form 35”. For the sake of clarity, the relevant extract of the “Form 35” is culled out as under: The Ld. AR had also filed an “affidavit” dated 20.11.2024, wherein it is stated by the assessee that he had not received any physical copy of the notices intimating the fixation of hearing of the appeals i.e. either by post 13 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 or by courier. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee for not fault on his part had remained divested of an opportunity to put up an appearance before the CIT(Appeals), therefore, he had for the said reason could not demonstrate before the CIT(Appeals) that there were bona fide reasons which had led to the delay of 192 days involved in filing of the present appeal before him. Further, Mr. Sethia submitted that in case the assessee would have been validly put to notice about the fixation of the appeal, then he would have fortified his explanation as regards the reasons which had led to the delay in filing of the appeal before the first appellate authority. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that in the totality of the facts involved in the present case, the matter in all fairness be restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to re-decide the assessee’s application for condonation of delay after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 14. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 15. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) by 192 days. Ostensibly, the assessee in the memorandum of appeal filed before the CIT(Appeals) i.e. “Form 35”, had specifically opted 14 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 out of service of notices/communications from the office of the CIT(Appeals) through email. However, we find that despite the fact that the assessee had opted to received notice/communication from the office of the CIT(Appeals) in a mode otherwise then email but on no occasion any physical/hard copy of any notice intimating fixation of the appeal on either of the three occasions i.e. on 12.07.2024, 30.07.2024 and 14.08.2024 was served upon him. Considering the aforesaid facts, we find substance in the contention of the Ld. AR that the assessee for no fault on his part had remained divested of an opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals) and, thus, could not demonstrate before the said first appellate authority that there were bonafide reasons which had resulted to delay in filing of the appeal before him. 16. Admittedly, the CIT(Appeals) only after considering the assessee’s request for condonation of delay had rejected the same, but we are of a firm conviction that the same cannot justify dispensing with the affording of an opportunity to the assessee to participate in the appellate proceedings and explain/fortify his claim as regards the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the subject appeal. As the assessee had remained divested of an opportunity in explaining the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the appeal, which in our view is in violation of principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem, therefore, we are of a firm conviction that 15 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 the matter in all fairness requires to be restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to re-consider the assessee’s application for condonation of the delay involved in filing of the appeal before him after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to him. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 to 3 are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. 17. Ground of appeal No.4 being general in nature is dismissed as not pressed. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.456/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. ITA No.457/RPR/2024 A.Y.2015-16 19. As the facts involved in the captioned appeal filed by the assessee remains the same as were there before us in the aforementioned ITA No.456/RPR/2024 for assessment year 2014-15, therefore, our order therein passed while disposing off the said appeal shall apply mutatis- mutandis for disposing off the present appeal, i.e., ITA No. 457/RPR/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16. In this case also, we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(Appeals) with similar directions as were recorded by us in ITA No.456/RPR/2024 for A.Y 2014-15. 16 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 456 & 457/RPR/2024 20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.457/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2015-16 is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. 21. Resultantly, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 25th day of November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 25th November, 2024. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "