SURYANARAYANA MURTHY VEDULA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 105/VIZ/2019Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 November 2020AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to file an affidavit for condonation of delay. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for adjudication on merits after considering the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a freelance journalist, filed his return of income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making additions due to unexplained bank deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay in filing and the absence of a condonation affidavit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits after the assessee failed to file a condonation affidavit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, Sr.DR
Hearing: 25/11/2020

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Hyderabad, dated 03/12/2018 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee is a freelance journalist, filed his return of income admitting total income of Rs.1,82,850/-. The case of the assessee was processed u/sec. 143(1) and subsequently case was selected for scrutiny and after following due procedure, assessment was completed u/sec. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The AO has noticed that assessee has made various deposits in the bank account but not proper explanation was given, therefore assessment was completed by making addition.

3.

On appeal, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that when there was a delay, assessee has to file the affidavit for condonation of delay. In this case, assessee failed to file an affidavit, therefore delay was not condoned and appeal was not admitted.

4.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to file an affidavit for condonation of delay. We therefore set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merits after considering the delay condonation. We also direct the AO to file delay condonation application before the ld. CIT(A) and also appear on the date is given for hearing. Accordingly, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 26th day of Nov., 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →