M/S AGRI HILLS FARM ESTATES INDAI PVT. LTD.,HOSUR, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1 HOSUR, HOSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 360/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 April 2023AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, considering the principle of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to re-consider the condonation application for the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a delay, which was not condoned. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on merits as the assessee did not attend the appellate proceedings. The assessee is now appealing to the ITAT seeking another opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AMAND HON’BLE SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 25-01-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 31-12-2016. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that the assessee has been saddled with sole addition on account of unexplained / bogus creditors.

1.

- 2 - 2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to the impugned order, submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal whereas the delay was sufficiently explained by affidavit of Managing Director of assessee company. A copy of the affidavit has been placed on record. The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The same has been opposed by Ld. CIT-DR on the ground that the assessee has remained negligent in attending the appellate proceedings.

3.

We find that the assessee’s appeal before first appellate authority was filed with a delay. The assessee could not explain the same and accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) found no force in submission for late filing of appeal. At the same time, Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose-off the appeal on merits. Since the assessee did not attend appellate proceedings despite being provided with couple of hearing, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on merits also. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us primarily with a prayer to provide another opportunity of hearing.

4.

Though the assessee has remained negligent in attending the appellate proceedings, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored to first appellate authority for de-novo adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) may re-consider condonation application filed by the assessee. If the delay is condoned, the appeal may be adjudicated on merits. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate its stand. Needless to add that reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee.

- 3 - 5. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th April, 2023.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →