Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution due to the death of the authorized Chartered Accountant. There was a delay of 455 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The original assessment was completed under Section 144.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 455 days, finding a reasonable cause due to the death of the assessee's CA. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is to be condoned, and whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
144, 69A, 254(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A), dated 01.08.2023 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short Ld. CIT(A)] erred in dismissing appeal for non-prosecution without dealing in the merits of the grounds raised
2. On the facts and in law, the Appellant could not appear before CIT(A) because of the death of Chartered Accountant, who was authorised representative of Appellant and who was responsible for handling matters.
3. On the facts and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO) erred in making addition under Section 69A of the Act without providing sufficient opportunity, the Appellant to explain cash deposited in bank account.
4. On the facts and in law, the impugned addition made under Section 69A of the Act be deleted.
5. The appellant craves, leave to add to alter, modify, revise, or delete any ground (s) in the interest of justice.”
Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused.The learned authorised representative (ld.AR) of the assessee submits thatthere is delay of 455 days in filing the appeal before Tribunal.
The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee was not aware about passing the impugned order by ld CIT (A). The assessment was completed in December, 2019 and the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) in January, 2000. The assessee appointed Chartered Accountant (CA)) namely Naresh Dattani who to handle the matter before ld. CIT(A), died in Covid-19 pandemic on 19.09.2020, copy of death certificate is filed on record. The assessee was not aware about the outcome of order of ld CIT(A). In the month of December, 2024, the assessee approach Mudassir Deshmukh, CA, who referred the assessee to present the various representative and on checking on Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal it was revealed that appeal of assessee was already been dismissed for the want of submission. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there was no intentional or deliberate delay in filing the appeal before Tribunal, rather due to the reasons explained hereinafter above. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessment was also completed under section 144. The Assessing Officer (AO) made addition on account of cash deposit during demonetization period.
The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is allowed to contest the case on merit. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the matter may be restored back to the file of AO ith the liberty to assessee to file requisite detail. He undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance and will not default in making timely response to the notices issued by lower authorities.
On the other hand, learned senior departmental representative (Sr.DR) for the Revenue submits that assessee is relying on self serving story. The assessee does not deserve in leniency. The appeal may be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of condonation of delay of 455 days in filing the appeal before Tribunal. We find that ld. AR of the assessee has taken firm stand that the assessee appointed Naresh Dattani to pursue his appeal before ld. CIT(A) and that the said CA died in Covid-19 pandemic, copy of his death certificate is on record. Considering the fact that CA/AR of the assessee died which resulted in non-compliance before CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the want of submission. Considering the fact that AR/CA of the assessee died during pendency of first appeal before CIT(A), thus, we find submissions of ld AR of the assessee as convincing that the assessee was not aware about the passing of impugned order by ld CIT(A), therefore, we find a reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing appeal. Thus, delay of 455 days in filing appeal before Tribunal is condoned. Now, adverting the merits of the case.
We find that the ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte for the want of submission by assessee, therefore keeping in view the principle of natural justice, the matter is restored back to the file of assessing officer to pass the order afresh. Needless to direct before passing the order afresh, the AO shall allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee directed to more vigilant in future and not undertake adjournment without any valid reasons. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.