PURAN SINGH,KHURJA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7571/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 July 2022AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was disputed by the assessee, who claimed to have applied for and received a certified copy of the assessment order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine for being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee claimed to have received the assessment order and demand notice on 22.01.2018, while the CIT(A) observed the service date as 29.10.2016.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed within the limitation period, considering the dispute over the date of service of the assessment order and demand notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.07.2022Pronounced: 29.07.2022

Date of hearing 13.07.2022 Date of pronouncement 29.07.2022 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 12.06.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

3.

On perusal of record, it is observed, though, multiple opportunities have been granted to the assessee, however, he has failed to avail them.

4.

In view of the aforesaid, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and based on material available on record.

5.

I have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record.

6.

As could be seen, against the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals).

However, assessee’s appeal was dismissed in limine, as, according to learned Commissioner (Appeals), it was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

7.

On a perusal of impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it appears that assuming that there is delay of more than one year in filing the appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal. However, in the Memorandum of Appeal in Form No. 35 filed before learned Commissioner (Appeals), assessee has mentioned the date of service of the assessment order and notice of demand as 22.01.2018. Whereas, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the assessment order and demand notice were served on the assessee on 29.10.2016. In reply to show cause notice issued by learned Commissioner (Appeals) regarding delay, assessee has specifically submitted that since it did not receive the original assessment order and the demand notice, it applied for certified copy and the certified copy of assessment order and notice of demand was received by him on 22.01.2018 and the appeal was filed on 28.01.2018.

8.

Considering the fact that the allegation of delay has been disputed by the assessee and in the interest of justice, it is desirable to decide the appeal on merits, I set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issues back to learned first appellate authority for deciding on merits after due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →