Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE
PER MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.06.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12.
The brief facts of the case are that, on verification of details available on record, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has not filed her return of income for the assessment year 2011-12. Hence, with a reason to believe that income
:-2-: ITA. No: 924/Chny/2023 chargeable to tax has been escaped assessment, the case was re-opened u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 22.03.2018 was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee filed her return of income on 08.05.2018, admitting a total income of Rs. 3,19,185/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made various investments including advance for plots, loans and advances, but could not explain source for said investments. The Assessing Officer, called upon the assessee to explain source, for which the assessee has not furnished substantive evidence to prove source for investment is opening capital. Therefore, the Assessing Officer rejected the arguments of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 39,44,861/- as unexplained investment. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, and said appeal has been filed with a delay of 5 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with reasons. But, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay, by holding that the reasons given by the assessee does not come under reasonable cause. Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
:-3-: ITA. No: 924/Chny/2023 3. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities.
The ld. Sr. AR, Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, even a day of delay needs to be explained with necessary reasons. Although, the assessee stated in her petition for condonation of delay that, the legal representative was pre-occupied with professional commitments, but could not justify such averments. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rightly rejected appeal filed by the assessee.
We find that there is a short delay of 5 days in filing of appeal before the first appellate authority. The assessee has explained the reasons, and as per which the delay is due to non- availability/pre-occupation of authorized representative, who assisted the assessee in filing the appeal. In our considered view, the reasons given by the assessee for not filing appeal within due date is bonafide and reasonable cause, because it is settled position of law from the decision of various courts, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors. [1987 AIR 1353], where it has been clearly held that, if the meritorious is case thrown out of :-4-: ITA. No: 924/Chny/2023 judicial scrutiny on technical grounds, the cause of justice would be defeated. On the other hand, if the delay is condoned, the best that can happen is the case can be heard on merits. The sum and substance of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that, no case should be disposed off on technical grounds. In the present case, the delay is only 5 days and assessee has explained the reasons for delay. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and direct the CIT(A) to condone the delay of 5 days in filing of appeal and also to decide the appeal on merits.