Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dilip Kumar Singh & Sons….. ……..……………………....Appellant C/o Dilip Kr. Singh, East Lohanipur, Pustakalaya Lane, Kadamkuan, Patna- 800003. [PAN: AAIHD8902J] vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Patna……. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri D. v. Pathy, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : December 17, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : December 19, 2024 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 01.02.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
Brief facts of the care are that the assessee entered into a land development agreement with M/s Sankalp Construction during the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer noticed that as per the agreement, the total value of land was Rs.4,41,14,025/- and the value of share owned by the assessee at one sixth share of 50% of land owned by the assessee which stands at Rs.36,76,169/-. On perusal of records, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not filed any return of income nor made any compliance, therefore, he issued notice u/s 148 of the Act after recording reasons to believe that the income from capital gains has escaped assessment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed assessment assessing total income of Rs.36,76,169/- raising tax demand of Rs.12,94,968/- vide order dated 23.12.2019 u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act.
4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order challenging the validity of the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the appeal filed before him was contained a delay of 754 days which is beyond the prescribed limited u/s 249(2) of the Act. The assessee explained reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) through an application, Form 35 and grounds of appeal. The ld. AR further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor attributable to any extraneous or ulterior motive on the part of the assessee and the assessee is not benefitted in any way from delayed filing of this appeal. The ld. AR in order to substantiate the submission has stated that as per Article 265 of the Constitution of India emphasises that no tax can be levied and collected except by authority of law, however, denial of hearing on merit of the case only on the ground of delay is not proper. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely on technical ground of delay in filing the appeal and did not consider the merit of the case and did not address the assessee’s application for the delay.
3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee approached this Tribunal arguing that the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the basis of delay in filing the appeal before him without adjudicating the merits of the case. The ld. AR contended that as per section 250(6) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a speaking order by adjudicating the appeal on merits and procedural aspect. He, therefore, prayed before the Bench that the matter may be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the merit of the case after condoning the delay.
On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the decision rendered by the authorities below.
We, after hearing the submissions of the parties and perusing the materials available on record, find that there was substantial delay of 754 days in filing the appeal. However, we find that the opportunity of justice cannot be sacrificed at the alter of the technicalities. We note that it is well-settled principle that justice should prevail over procedural lapses especially when a party shows genuine intention to rectify its error. Considering the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, we condone the delay of 754 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). We also find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed without addressing the merit of the case which is contrary to the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. We, therefore, deem it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard and due consideration of facts and submissions made before him while passing a fresh order.
In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 19th December, 2024.