Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आदेश /O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in NFAC/2016-17/10066695 dated 09.12.2022. The return of income was processed and intimation u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) was issued by the 2 DCIT, Central Processing Unit, Bangalore for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 16.03.2019.
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deciding the appeal ex-parte and in utter violation of principles of natural justice without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For this, assessee has raised various grounds which need not be reproduced and even grounds raised on merits.
At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee drew our attention to the order of CIT(A) and stated that the appeal before CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 1003 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition before CIT(A) by stating the reasons as under:- In connection to the delay of 1 003 days in filing an appeal against the intimation u/s. 143(1), it is submitted that on receipt of the said intimation and on observing the disallowances made by the CPC, no action in the form of filing an appeal was taken by the petitioner for the following reasons:
Firstly, the directors of the petitioner were under the impression that the disallowances made in the intimation would be dealt with during the course of assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment year and also were not aware that an appeal can be filed against the intimation u/s.143(1).
Secondly, the directors of the petitioner were under the bonafide belief that since the petitioner is a company governed by the provisions of the Tonnage Tax Scheme, the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act with respect to disallowances u/s. 28 to 43C would not apply.
3 The petitioner thereafter received issue letter dated 29.12.2021 from the Assessing Officer requiring the petitioner to pay the outstanding tax demands for various assessment years which also included the outstanding tax demand pertaining to the impugned assessment year arising out of the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act.
The ld.AR stated that the CIT(A) without adjudication on the reasonable cause shown by assessee, dismissed the appeal of assessee by simply observing in para 3.5 as under:- “3.5 The appeal is a right created by the Statute and it is not naturally vested. However the right helps only those who remain awake to exercise the same. The purpose of providing limitation in the right of appeal is to put an end to a proceeding. As assessee assisted by duly qualified Chartered Accountants did not file appeal due to gross negligence, and the cause shown is neither a satisfactory cause nor a sufficient cause, the request for condonation of delay cannot be granted. Considering the facts of the case the delay is not condoned.”
The ld.AR stated that there was no opportunity given to the assessee to represent its case and the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte. When this was confronted to ld. CIT-DR, he could not controvert the arguments of the ld.AR.
Since the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte and assessee is not even heard on the issue of condonation i.e., delay of 1003 days and given reasons for delay in its condonation petition as noted above, we think that let the matter be restored back to the file of the CIT(A), who will decide on the delay first and thereafter, in case delay is 4 condoned, he will decide on merits. In term of the above, the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24th April, 2023 at Chennai.