RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-46(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 932/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 January 2023AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned a minor delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering it a matter of justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed agricultural receipts as exempt income, but the Assessing Officer made an addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay in filing and lack of a condonation petition.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the appeal decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.12.2022

(PAN : AADPA8721F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.12.2022 Date of Order : 06.01.2023 ORDER

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-16, New Delhi dated 29.12.2017 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :-

“1. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and the facts of the case in treating the agricultural receipts as taxable receipts. 2. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and the facts of the case in disallowing the agricultural expenses.

3. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law in disallowing the agricultural income at Rs.1,08,78,737/- against declared at Rs.66,24,181/-. That no income can be earned without incurring incidental expenses.

4.

It is therefore prayed that addition be deleted and returned income be accepted.”

3.

In this case, in the assessment order, Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,08,78,737/- which was claimed by assessee as exempt agricultural income.

4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that on several notices, nobody turned up on behalf of the assessee. Further, ld. CIT (A) noted that notice of demand has been served on 30.12.2016 and as per section 249 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), prescribed limit for filing the appeal is 30 days. Thereafter, he noted that however the assessee filed appeal on 03.02.2017. Hence, he noted that there is a delay in filing of appeal and appropriate condonation petition was not filed.

Hence, he dismissed the appeal in limine.

5.

We have heard ld. DR for the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Hence, we proceed to decide the issue after hearing the ld. DR for the Revenue and perusing the records.

6.

We note that as per noting of ld. CIT (A) himself, the effective delay was only 3 days. For such a meager delay, dismissing the appeal by not condoning the same does not serve the purpose of justice. In our and the same is condoned as such. Hence, we remit the file to the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 6th day of January, 2023.

More judgments on Section 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →