Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI & SH. K. NARASIMHA CHARY
Date of hearing: 29.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 02.12.2021 ORDER
PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.05.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Noida relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.
The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under :
Assessee is a residential Welfare Association of Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO) registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 30.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.78,26,200/-. Assessee thereafter revised its return of income on 31.03.2015 revising the income to Rs.73,25,035/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the total income was determined at Rs.78,26,198/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 31.05.2018 in Appeal No.214/e-file/2016-17/Noida dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds:
1. “The Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee due to a technical default of non submission of Appeal Fees Challan with the appeal while in fact the appeal was filed online and the appeal Fees Challan was duly submitted online in time.
2. The Ld. A.O. is not justified in treating the Rental Income from Shops as Income from Other Sources in place of Income from House Property and consequently disallowing the deduction of Rs.5,01,163/- allowed u/s 24(a).
3. The appellant craves the right to add, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
4. Before us, Learned AR at the outset, pointing to Ground No.1 submitted that CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits and has simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that appeal fees was not allegedly paid by the assessee. He submitted that the aforesaid contention of the Learned CIT(A) of assessee having not paid the appeal fees is factually incorrect and in support of his contention, he pointed to the copy of the Form 35 which was filed online the copy placed at Page 24 of the paper book and specifically pointed to the Sr. No.16 of the form which showed the payment of appeal fees of Rs.1000/-. He thereafter pointed to Page 25 of the Paper Book which is the Challan for making of payment of appeal fees. He therefore submitted that since CIT(A) has not passed the order on merits and has dismissed the appeal of assessee appropriate order be passed in the present case.
Learned DR on the other hand did not controvert the submissions made by Learned AR but however supported the order of AO.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for the alleged reason that assessee had not filed the appeal fees as mandated by provisions of Section 249 (1)(iii) of the Act and no order on merits was passed by him. Before us, Learned AR has pointed out that the contention of the CIT(A) of assessee having not paid the applicable filing fees to be incorrect by pointing to the copy of the Challan evidencing the payment of filing fees and the copy of the online Form 35 filed which is placed at Page 25 of the paper book which also has the reference of filing fees paid by assessee. We therefore find force in the arguments of the Learned AR. We are of the view that by dismissing the appeal without considering the issue on merits, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. Further it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) dated 31.05.2018 and restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re- adjudication of the issues after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish the details called for by the lower authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.