ROHAN ASHOK THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 4(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6764/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 July 2022AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the change of tax consultant and the assessee's health issues. The tribunal emphasized a lenient approach for ordinary taxpayers and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred due to a delay of 3 months and 16 days. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation petition, citing inconsistencies in the medical certificate and lack of an affidavit.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should have been condoned, and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without deciding on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI SMC BENCH, MUMBAI

Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI 'SMC' BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] Assessment year: 2015-16 Rohan Ashok Thakur ………….……… Appellant 401, 4th floor, Opp. Papdi Talav, Near Hanuman Mandir, Papdi, Vasai-401 201 [PAN:ACUPT7269A] Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 4(3) Thane ……………… Respondent Appearances by None for the appellant Sudha Ramchandran for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : April 18, 2022 Date of pronouncement the order : July 15, 2022 ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, VP:

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee-appellant has challenged the order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16, dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable on the ground that it is time barred.

2.

None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable in the legal position. 3. To adjudicate on this appeal it is sufficient to take note of the fact that the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) was delayed by 3 months and 16 days and it was dismissed by the learned CIT(A), rejecting the condonation petition filed by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), in so rejecting the condonation petition had noticed certain inconsistencies in the medical certificate, further, noted that the condonation petition is not supported by an affidavit and observed inter alia that “for condoning delay in filing of the appeal it must be proved

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →