KONDA LAXMAIAH,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2036/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 August 2021AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that it would be in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared agricultural income and a small amount of other income. The AO made a significant addition for short-term capital gains on the sale of a plot, which the assessee had not offered for taxation. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a one-day delay in filing, without condoning it.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in-limine without condoning a minor delay. Whether the appeal should be decided on merits after condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram
For Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Hearing: 11/08/2021Pronounced: 30/08/2021

O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A) – 3, Hyderabad’s order dated 16/11/2016 for AY 2007-08 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”.

2.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed his return of income for AY 2007-08 declaring income of Rs. 2,26,659/- and net agricultural income of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 37,49,659/- as against the returned income of the assessee of Rs. 2,26,659/-, by making an addition of short term capital gain of Rs. 35,23,000/- on the ground that the assessee did not offer any capital gain on sale of plot.

3.

When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in- limine on the ground that the assessee filed the appeal with a little delay, for which the assessee failed to submit the genuine reasons for the delay in filing the appeal even though sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

5.

In the course of hearing, it was pointed out by the learned counsel of the assessee that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in-limine without condoning the delay of 1 day in filing the appeal before him. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to his file for deciding various grounds of appeal on merits. The learned DR agreed with the aforesaid statement of the learned AR.

6.

We have considered the facts of the case and the request made by the learned AR. 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 by condoning the delay. Accordingly, the CIT(A) is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the appeal on merits. We direct the assessee to appear before CIT(A) without seeking any unnecessary adjournments for speedy disposal of appeal.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on 30th August, 2021.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →