Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) solely on the grounds of limitation (186 days delay) without considering the merits. The assessment order was passed under section 147 read with section 144/144B, and the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeal ought not to have been dismissed without considering the reasons for the delay and affording a reasonable opportunity. The assessee was denied adequate opportunity during assessment and appellate proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without considering the merits and affording proper opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 148, 249(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM):
The instant appeal of the assesse filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘the Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] for A.Y. 2018-19, date of order 20/03/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department, [in short, “the Ld. AO”] passed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 07/02/2024.
2 ITA 3582/Mum /2025 Harishchandra Laxman Dongre 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment as well as the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) were both ex parte, and the assessee was unable to furnish the requisite documents before either authority. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 66, which has been taken on record.
The Ld. AR further contended that the assessee is a salaried employee working with M/s. Focus Fitness Private Limited, earning a salary of Rs.2,63,730/-, on which tax of Rs.912/- was deducted at source. The assessee had not filed his return of income. Pursuant to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessment was completed. While completing the assessment, the Ld. AO considered the assessee’s salary income at Rs.5,46,630/-, which is nearly double the actual salary earned, without bringing any corroborative evidence on record to support such estimation.
It was also submitted that the assessee had purchased a property located at MIDC, Khairane, Navi Mumbai, for a consideration of Rs.36,33,000/- on 27/04/2017, against a stamp duty valuation of Rs.35,38,000/-. Considering the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.21,22,703/-, the resultant capital gain was Rs.15,10,297/-, which was claimed as exempt, as the assessee had invested in a new residential flat. However, the assessee was unable to submit the relevant documentary evidence before the authorities below.
Before us, the assessee has filed additional evidence which, in our view, is material and relevant to the adjudication of the issues involved in the present
3 ITA 3582/Mum /2025 Harishchandra Laxman Dongre appeal. It is also noted that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 186 days. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation under section 249(2) of the Act, without dealing with the merits of the case.
In our considered opinion, while there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal ought not to have been dismissed without considering the reasons for the delay and without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was denied adequate opportunity both during the assessment as well as in the appellate proceedings. The Ld. DR has not raised any serious objection to the submissions made by the Ld. AR. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the assessee’s request for condonation of delay of 186 days in filing the appeal and adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to furnish all relevant documents, including those submitted before us as additional evidence, before the Ld. CIT(A) for proper appreciation of facts.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as to not prejudice the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing a fresh appellate order. The assessee is also directed to be diligent and fully co-operative in the remand proceedings to enable early disposal of the appeal.
4 ITA 3582/Mum /2025 Harishchandra Laxman Dongre 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse bearing