JAGANATHANBALASINGH,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 630/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 February 2023AY 2017-20185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the revision orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of a proper hearing opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessees' appeals were filed with a delay due to the father's medical issues. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax passed revision orders without providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessees to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the revision orders passed by the PCIT were in violation of natural justice principles by not providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 07.02.2023Pronounced: 07.02.2023

2 & 630/Chny/2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: These two appeals by the assessees are arising out of different revision orders passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore -1 in Revision No.PCIT,Coimbatore-1/ Revision 263/100000325500/2022 & PCIT,Coimbatore-1/Revision-263/ 100000324582/2022 dated 25.03.2022 & 23.03.2022. The assessments were framed by the ACIT, Circle-2, Erode for the assessment year 2017-18, in both the assessees cases u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide orders of even date 30.12.2019.

2.

At the outset it is noticed that these two appeals are barred by limitation by 63 days and 65 days and both the assessee’s have filed condonation petition supported by affidavit that Shri Annappandinadar Jagannathan, the assessee and father of Shri Jaganathan Balasingh, the second assessee was having medical issues and was advised complete rest by the Doctor. Both the assessee’s have enclosed the medical report. The affidavit states same medical reason, which is common in both the petitions and the relevant reads as under:-

3 & 630/Chny/2022 “I state that the father of the Petitioner / Appellant, Mr. Annapandinadar Jaganathan was facing multiple medical issues and was advised to take complete rest by his doctor (The Medical Report is enclosed). I state that the medical ails faced by the father of the Petitioner / Appellant coupled with frequent visits to the Hospital to avail medical treatment had prevented me in approaching the Chartered Accountant / Counsel on record for filing the appeal against the impugned order within the prescribed time period and I state that the bad health unexpectedly faced by my father would constitute reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the impugned order and for adjudication of the issues on merits.” From the reasons stated, it seems that cause is reasonable seeing the length of delay. Hence, we condone the delay and admit these two appeals for adjudication.

3.

At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to para 4 of the revision order, which is common in both the appeals except the date. The ld.counsel drew our attention to the following para 4 in ITA No.629/Chny/2022 in the case of Shri Annappandinadar Jaganathan:- “4. In response to the above show cause notice, the case was posted for hearing on 17/03/2022. The assessee was given opportunity to appear in person or through their authorized representative or to file written submissions. However, none appeared on the hearing date, nor any written submissions were received. Therefore, the present proceedings initiated u/s.263 of the Act is disposed off based on material available on record.”

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →