DHARMESHKUMAR R. TRIVEDI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 692/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 December 2021AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were sufficient cause. The CIT(A) ought to have taken a lenient view and decided the appeal on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was delayed by two months. The assessee attributed the delay to ignorance of IT Act proceedings and issues with their authorized representative. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE- & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Hearing: 11/11/2021Pronounced: 01/12/2021

PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT:

1.

Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad dated 25.02.2019 passed for the Asstt.Year 2015-16.

2.

In the appeal memo, the assessee has raised two grounds of appeal against order of the ld.CIT(A). In the first ground of appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal without appreciating genuine reasons given by the assessee at the time of appellate proceedings.

3.

For adjudicating this issue, we take a brief note of the facts of the case. Assessee is an individual having business income. He efiled

25.3.2017 declaring total income at Rs.4,92,800/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter picked up for scrutiny assessment by issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. However, assessee failed to comply with the notice and failed furnish details sought for by the AO. Accordingly, the ld.AO finalized assessment proceedings under section 144 of the Act and assessed the income by making addition of Rs.11,62,000/-. This order was challenged before first appellate authority by filing appeal, which, according to the ld.CIT(A) was late by two months. Before the ld.CIT(A) has filed condonation of delay, contents of which read as under:

“The appellant has received the order approximately on 23.11.2017 and as such the appeal is ought to have been filed on or before 22.12.2017. There is a delay of approximately 2 months which needs to be condoned due to following facts.

(1) The appellant is not conversion with the provision and proceedings of the IT Act and whatever notice was received from the department was handed over to the authorized representative for appearance and necessary compliance. However to surprise to the appellant, on being receipt of the order, the appellant came to know that the authorized representative has not appeared before the learned AO in response to various notices. Thus, the appellant being quite ignorant as well as the certified copy of the relevant bank statement was received only on 22.2.2018, the appeal is filed late. These being the reasonable cause and ther is no fault on the part of the appellant to commit any default under the IT Act, the delay in filing the appeal needs to be condoned to meet the end of justice. As mentioned in the grounds of appeal the addition in respect of particular bank account does not belong to the appellant and account is opened only in A. Y. 2016-17. Thus, the addition being factually bad as well as against the facts and evidence on record and as such to meet the end of 2 justice, the addition needs to be deleted by condoning the delay in filing the appeal"

However, the ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, and after following some judicial authorities, rejected request of the assessee to condone the delay, and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee as non-maintainable as being time barred.

4.

With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that the assessee has filed appeal before first appellate authority which was late by two months. Before us, assessee has filed copy the condonation petition, in which, the assessee has explained the reasons for delay. We are of the view that on seeing quantum of delay being two months days, and the reasons explained by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have taken a lenient view in condoning the delay and considered the case of the assessee on merit. We find that expression “sufficient cause” employed in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act provides powers to the ld.Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. We are of the view that the reasons explained by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) are sufficient enough to condone the impugned delay, and decide the appeal on merit. Though the assessee has given reasons for delay in his petition for condonation of delay, ld.CIT(A) has not appreciated the same in right perspective and not justified in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal in limine. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and set aside order of the 3

ld.CIT(A) the remit the file back to the ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating the issues raised in the appeal of the assessee on merit. Needless to mention here that the assessee shall cooperate with the ld.CIT(A) and not seek unnecessary adjournments during the proceedings. The ld.CIT(A) shall adjudicate the case after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court on 1st December, 2021 at Ahmedabad.

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →