HARITHA NORI,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 410/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 October 2021AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 170 days. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely for not filing a condonation of delay petition, without granting a hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-filing of a delay condonation petition without granting a hearing. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Hearing: 31/08/2021Pronounced: 06/10/2021

O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad’s order dated 27/11/2019 for AY 2008-09 case no. 41/2019-20 involving proceedings u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act” on the following grounds of appeal.

Smt. Haritha Nori, Sec’bad

2.

At the outset, it is brought to our notice that there is a delay of 170 days in filing the appeal. To this effect, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 17.03.2020 stating reasons for such delay in filing appeal before us. Relying on the case law Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17 December, 2019, wherein it was held that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that impugned Smt. Haritha Nori, Sec’bad delay of 170 days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond assessee’s control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

3.

In the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld.counsel for the assessee that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee for for the sole reason of non-filing of petition for condonation of delay and has not provided the assessee an opportunity of hearing to present her case.

4.

We have considered the facts of the case and the request made by the assessee. We are of the view that interest of justice will be served if the matter is restored to the file of first appellate authority for deciding various grounds of appeal of the assessee on merits. Accordingly, the CIT(A) is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the appeal on merits within three effective opportunities of hearing. We direct the assessee to appear before CIT(A) with all the relevant evidences; at her own risk and responsibility to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 06th October, 2021.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →