Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI LALIET KUMAR
आदेश / ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, JM: Aggrieved by the order dated 28/02/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Vijay Kumar Agarwal (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2012-13, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee is karta of HUF. For the previous year ending 31/03/2012 relevant to the assessment year 2012-13, assessee filed the original return of income on 27/07/2012, declaring total income at Rs. 8,08,620/-. The case of the assessee was re- opened by the learned Assessing Officer and a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was issued to the assessee on 30/03/2019. In response to the said notice, assessee submitted a letter on 20/04/2019 enclosing the income tax return filed on 27/07/2012. Later, the assessee filed e-return for the assessment year 2012-13 on 18/04/2019 by considering the same income as filed in the original return of income. However, while issuing the notice, learned Assessing Officer did not intimate the reasons for re-opening of the assessment. Subsequently, learned Assessing Officer issued notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act asking the assessee to furnish the details. In response to the said notices, assessee submitted the information as directed by the learned Assessing Officer. Learned Assessing Officer re-opened the case of assessee, believing that the assessee had extended unsecured loan of Rs. 10 lakhs to M/s. Kaanak Industries (PAN: AAJFK9260F).
During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee explained that the information relied upon by the learned Assessing Officer is not correct, by using the same PAN i.e., assessee’s PAN, another person would have filed the return of income. By verifying the address on the PAN, data available in the Income Tax Department’s web site or by verifying the address mentioned on the PAN data, the learned Assessing Officer would have come to the knowledge of using the PAN number by another PAN number. However, without considering the submissions of assessee, learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.
147 of the Act, assessed the total income at Rs. 18,08,620/- by adding Rs. 10 lakhs and arrived tax payable at Rs. 8,64,781/- including interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act at Rs. 2,57,508/- and Rs. 2,99,533/-; respectively.
Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A), raising various grounds.
During the appellate proceedings, learned CIT(A) found that there was a delay of 166 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. Accordingly, learned CIT(A) issued notice to assessee on various dates, asking to furnish the written submissions in support of the grounds of appeal
and specifically asked to submit the reasons for delay of 166 days in filing the appeal. For that assessee furnished information, explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Considering the explanation of assessee, without going into the merits of the case, learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee stating that - before going into merits of the case, assessee would have justified the delay in filing the appeal with convincing reasons along with documentary evidences.
6. Learned AR, therefore, submitted that in view of the Pandemic interfering, in the fitness of things to condone the delay and restore the appeal to the file of learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case.
7. Learned DR vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee.
8. We have heard the rival submissions, gone through the case file and perused the material on record. As per record it is observed that the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly. It is also undeniable fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has excluded time limitation in general, pertaining to Covid-19.
9. Learned CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal which was on account of Covid-19 pandemic and also for other reasonable cause. Since the learned CIT(A) had not condoned the delay in filing the appeal, we remand the appeal to the file of learned CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeal by taking a lenient view. Further learned CIT(A) is also directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say that above said exercise shall be carried out by the learned CIT(A) after affording the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, we set aside the order of learned CIT(A). We also make it clear that it is the last opportunity to the assessee to get the matter disposed of on merits. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
10. In the result, appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 18th day of May, 2023.