Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) which had rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation. The assessee explained that the delay was due to gathering details and documentation, and seeking legal advice.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, should the matter be decided on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE BR BASKARANHON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 11.11.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-17.
At the very outset, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) had rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the 2 Shivaji Vishnupant Vidhate, Mumbai. same was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
From the records, we noticed that assessee has filed a detailed explanation thereby explaining the reason for seeking condonation of delay. The assessee has categorically submitted that the delay in filing the appeal had happened due to gathering of minor details and documentation to support the appeal as has been advised by the advocate. It is further submitted that the assessee could not get proper legal advice and therefore under bonafide belief spent their time in collecting/gathering the details and documentation.
Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC), we are inclined to condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the delay stands condoned.
3 Shivaji Vishnupant Vidhate, Mumbai.
Since we have already condoned the delay, therefore we restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.