SUNIL WAMAN CHAUDHARY ,THANE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6071/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 March 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 114 days, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal also noted that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was decided ex parte. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) for non-payment of self-assessment tax. The assessee faced a delay in filing the appeal due to non-payment of taxes, which was later paid, and a petition for condonation of delay was filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without providing an opportunity of hearing, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 01.01.2025Pronounced: 26.03.2025

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Pune-11. vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1065124601(1), dated 24.05.2024 passed against the assessment order by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Thane, u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 27.09.2021 for Assessment Year 2019-20.

2.

Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing any proper opportunity of hearing by holding that the appeal filed is not liable to be admitted as the appellant has not paid the full tax on the returned income." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in-limine ignoring the fact that the shortfall in payment of Sunil Waman Chaudhary, AY 2019-20 tax on returned income was due to reasons beyond the control of the appellant and therefore, the Id. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merit." 3. "On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant, thereby confirmed the addition of Rs. 32,50,000 made by the ld. AO u/s.69A of the Act."

3.

There is a delay of 114 days noted by the registry in filing the present appeal for which petition of condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. According to the assessee, order of ld. CIT(A), dated 25.05.2024 was received by him on 25.06.2024 by post, dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground that tax on returned income was not fully paid. Assessee submitted that since he could not pay the taxes, appeal filing was delayed. Subsequently, the due taxes on the returned income were deposited by Challan dated 13.09.2024, amounting to Rs.5,35,000/-. Thereafter, assessee proceeded to file the present appeal along with petition for condonation of delay and affidavit. According to the assessee, there is no intention to jeopardize the interest of Revenue, by delaying the filing of the present appeal and hence prayed for condoning the same.

3.1. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay along with an affidavit. Upon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication.

4.

In the present appeal, order passed by ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order, dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground that self assessment tax had remained to be paid. Assessee has deposited the self assessment tax on 13.09.2024 for which copy of challan receipt is placed on record.

Sunil Waman Chaudhary, AY 2019-20 5. Before us, it is claimed that, since the defect of non payment of self assessment tax has been cured, assessee be given one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the ld. CIT(A), since it has been passed ex parte, without dealing with the merits of the case. There being no objection from the other side, in the interest of justice and play and more importantly, when the assessee has cured the defect which formed the basis of dismissal of first appeal by ld. CIT(A), we find it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication on the grounds raised by the assessee at the first appellate stage. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submissions, if so required. Ld. CIT(A) may pass the order afresh after considering the facts on record and the submissions made by the assessee, in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →