Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed against the orders of the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeals for delay without condoning it. The delay was attributed to the misplacement of papers by the chartered accountant. The assessee discovered the non-compliance late when a recovery notice was received.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a reasonable and bonafide cause. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh on merits after condoning the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was on account of a reasonable cause, and if so, whether the appeal should be restored for decision on merits.
Sections Cited
68, 271(1)(C), 144, 27(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
Assessee by : Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue by : Shri R. R. Makwana Date of Hearing 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH:- These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 18.11.2024 passed u/s. 6503, 6504 & 6505/Mum/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Years [A.Ys.] 2013-14 & 2014-15.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for the four appeals: for AY 2013-14 “1 On facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A), has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even though sufficient cause has been furnished to justify the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal..
2. On facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the issue of addition of Rs.77,50,650/- made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credit.”
AY 2013-14 “1. On facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A), has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even though sufficient cause has been furnished to justify the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal.
2. On facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the issue of levy of penalty of Rs.22,39,280/- made under section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” for AY 2014-15 “1. On facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A), has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even though sufficient cause has been furnished to justify the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal.
2. On facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the issue of addition of Rs.2,62,66,629/- made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credit.” for AY 2014-15 “1. On facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A), has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even though sufficient cause has been furnished to justify the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal.
2. On facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the issue of penalty of Rs. 89,28,026/- made under section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
6503, 6504 & 6505/Mum/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta
Since facts in all four appeals are identical, these appeals are being disposed of together vide a common order, and for AY 2013-14 is taken up as a lead case.
ITA No. 6502/Mum/2024 for AY 2013-14
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return declaring income of Rs. 2,09,570/- on 15.07.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 79,60,220/- after making the addition of Rs. 77,50,650/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The delay in filing of appeal was 1080 days on account of which the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal after rejecting the request for condonation of delay in the absence of any reasonable or sufficient cause.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee on receipt of notices issued, handed over the same to his chartered accountant for requisite compliance. However, no compliance was made as the papers were misplaced by the chartered accountant, and therefore, the assessment was completed u/s 144 of 6503, 6504 & 6505/Mum/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta the Act by the AO after making the addition of Rs. 26,26,629/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
The assessee discovered the non-compliance on the part of his representative only in March 2019 when he received a recovery notice for the outstanding dues. Thereafter, a request was made by him before the AO for obtaining duplicate copies of the orders which were provided on 26.03.2019. Accordingly, the assessee immediately filed the appeal against the order through another chartered accountant without any further delay. Ld. AR has also filed an affidavit of the assessee stating the above facts and circumstances and has requested for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
Ld. DR has not opposed the proposition made by the Ld. AR.
In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the first appeal as explained by the assessee is on account of a reasonable cause. Accordingly, we deem it proper to restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merits after condoning the delay which is on account of bonafide reasons. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
6503, 6504 & 6505/Mum/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta for AY 2014-15 for AY 2014-15 11. Since the facts and circumstances in the above three appeals are similar as in ITA No. 6502/Mum/2024 for AY 2013-14 and these appeals have also been dismissed exparte by Ld. CIT(A) after rejecting the request for condonation of delay, the order in ITA No. 6502/Mum/2024 will apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals also.
In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2025.