DIGIHOME SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,MUM vs. ITO, WARD-6(2)(3), MUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2299/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 October 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on its merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a five-month delay. The assessee had provided reasons for the delay, which were considered by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by a reasonable cause and whether the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC‘ BENCH

Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat
For Respondent: Shri Pratap Sharma
Hearing: 27/10/2022Pronounced: 27/10/2022

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

1.

This appeal in A.Y.2013-14 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in appeal No.CIT(A)- 12,Mumbai/10083/2019-20 dated 29/07/2022 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 10/12/2018 by the ld. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

M/s. Digihome Solutions Pvt. Ltd., “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the CIT Appeals, erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,99,749/- of the Act which is bad at law.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO failed to appreciate that a) The assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard and assessment was done ex-parte. b) The reasonable cause for delay in filing was properly explained in the Affidavit filed, which is ignored by the CIT(A) c) Dismissal of the appeal without going through the merits of case is bad at law. d) The additions are based on the gross income as per ITS/ 26AS and ignoring the fact that there will be some expenditure to earn the income.

3.

The Appellant therefore prays that the assessment completed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act may please be send back to the concerned AO to give proper opportunity to the Assessee. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, and/ or amend the above grounds of appeal.”

3. I have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, I find that there was a delay in filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by five months which fact is stated in para 4.1 of the order of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee had given proper reasons for the delay in filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which is reproduced in para 4.2 of order of the ld. CIT(A). On going through the same, I am convinced that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in time. Hence, I direct the ld. CIT(A) to hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. Since the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground of delay by not giving any decision on merits, I hereby direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the M/s. Digihome Solutions Pvt. Ltd., issues raised in the grounds of appeal on merits, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 27/10/2022

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →