SHRI TEJAS G. VORA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2896/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 March 2023AY 2010-20114 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. It also directed the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present submissions and evidence, and to pass a reasoned order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order with a significant delay of 994 days. The delay was attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic, other legal matters, and personal issues.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

For Respondent: Shri P Suresh
Hearing: 01/03/2023Pronounced: 01/03/2023

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT (AM): This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26/02/2020 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-44, Mumbai [in short, the Ld.CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2010-11 in relation to penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’).

2 ITA 2896/Mum/2022 2. At the outset, we find that non attended on behalf of the assessee despite notifying for the date by the registered post as well as notice served by the Income-tax Officer which was sent to him through Departmental Representative. In view of non compliance, we were of the opinion that assessee was not interested in prosecuting the present appeal and, therefore, same was heard exparte qua the assessee after hearing the arguments of the Ld.Departmental Representative.

3.

On perusal of the record we find that there is a delay of 994 days in filing the present appeal against the demand of the penalty of Rs.1.30 crores. It is mentioned in the affidavit by the appellant that the delay was on account of the break out of the Covid and thereafter other legal matters due to which, he could not approach his legal representative. The relevant part of his affidavit is reproduced as under:-

“12.Breakout of Covid and its aftermath, coupled with serious trade issues, section 138 court case against me, DRT court, police FIR, death in family etc proved fatal and restrained me from approaching legal representative for filing appeal”

4.

We have heard the Ld.DR on the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has submitted that various litigations and pandemic which caused delay in filing the present appeal. In our opinion, the reasons given by the appellant constitute a sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

5.

On perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), we find that despite giving various opportunities, no representation was made before him on behalf of the assessee.

3 ITA 2896/Mum/2022 Various notices issued as referred in para 2.1 of the impugned order are reproduced as under:-

Sl.No Date of Date of Remarks Notice hearing 1 30.11.2017 13.12.2017 Adjournment letter filed 2 11.09.2018 24.09.2018 Attend & called for details 3 10.12.2018 20.12.2018 Non-compliance 4 31.12.2018 17.01.2019 Case Adjourned to 01.02.2019 5 04.02.2019 22.02.2019 Case Adjourned to 08.03.2019 6 08.03.2019 28.03.2019 Case Adjourned 7 04.02.2020 17.02.2020 Non-compliance

6.

We find that in view of the reasons given by the assessee, the assessee could not be represent before the Ld.CIT(A) as well and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we find it appropriate to allow one more opportunity to the assessee to file its submissions alongwith documentary evidences before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the submissions of the assessee. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01 day of March, 2023.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →