SUBHASH SINGHAL,HARIDWAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)(2)ITO, ROORKEE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 48/DDN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun25 September 2023AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeal afresh on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 244 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred without condoning the delay. The assessee's reason for the delay was non-cooperation from his counsel.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH ‘DB’ : DEHRADUN

For Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.09.2023

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun dated 21.09.2020 pertaining to assessment year 2015-16. 2. Although assessee has raised various grounds, the first ground raised is that ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal as being time barred and did not condone the delay.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, the assessee filed his return of income electronically on 31.03.2017 declaring net profit of Rs.2,59,260/- u/s 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') @ 8% and declared a turnover of Rs.32,12,540/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to examine the source of cash deposits in bank account of the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.16,90,520/- which was 8% of the total turnover of Rs.2,11,31,500/- (the total turnover was replaced with the amount of total cash deposit of Rs.2,11,31,500/-).

4.

Against this order, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A). There was a delay of 244 days before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) did not condone the same and dismiss the appeal as time barred.

5.

Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the records.

6.

We note that reasonable ground taken before the ld. CIT (A) for the delay was non-cooperation of the assessee’s counsel at that time. In our considered opinion, the assessee’s reasons cannot be said to be malafide. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay and remit the issue to the file of ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) shall consider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order.

7.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 25th day of September, 2023.

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →