What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s office failed to notify the assessee of the defect. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred by 3 days. The assessee contended that this defect was not communicated, and the CIT(A) failed to follow proper procedure.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without proper communication of the defect to the assessee.

Multispan Instruments Company vs JCIT | ITAT Ahmedabad 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘C’

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN

Hearing: 28/06/2019Pronounced: 15/07/2019

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 28/06/2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 15/07/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-XX, Ahmedabad dated 2.9.2014 passed for the Asstt.Year 2010-11.

In response to the notice of hearing none has come present on behalf of the assessee. With the assistance of the ld.DR we have gone through the record and proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte assessee-appellant.

2 3. It emerges out from the record that the assessee has filed its return of income on 27.9.2010 declaring total income at Rs.1,96,31,320/-. An assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 28.2.2013 whereby total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.2,09,43,552/-. The addition of Rs.12,82,237/- has been made to the income of the assessee. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appeal was filed on 17.4.2013. The ld.CIT(A) has observed that the appeal of the assessee was time barred by 3 days, and the assessee failed to file any application for condonation of delay. Hence, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee being time barred.

A perusal of the statement of facts filed before the Tribunal would indicate that defect in filing before the ld.CIT(A) was not communicated to the assessee. It was not brought to its notice that its appeal was time barred by 3 days and therefore it is required to file application for condonation of delay. To our mind Registry of the office of the ld.CIT(A) failed to follow the correct procedure. If there was any defect in the appeal, it should have been brought to the notice of the assessee, more so, when delay is very nominal i.e. just three days; appeal should not have been dismissed on that count. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore this issue to his file. It will be appreciated that the ld.CIT(A) will follow the correct procedure by pointing out to the assessee about the defects in its appeal. Even otherwise, we give opportunity to the assessee to file application for condonation of delay before the ld.CIT(A) within one month after receipt of this order and on such application the ld.CIT(A) shall decide the issue

3 for condonation of delay, and thereafter, if convinced, then decide the appeal on merit.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Court on 15th July, 2019.

MULTISPAN INSTRUMENTS COMPANY,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-12, AHMEDABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments