MANISH LALIT LALWANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 101/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 June 2019AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay. The CIT(A) was instructed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 120 days. The assessee, a housewife, cited health issues and late service of hearing notice as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, and if the reasons provided by the assessee constitute sufficient cause for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(2)(b),Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Mohan Rao
For Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri
Hearing: 14/05/2019Pronounced: 12/06/2019

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) – 6, Hyderabad, dated, 31/10/2018 for AY 2015-16.

2.

The assessee has raised two grounds of appeal against the order of CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine on the ground that the assessee filed the appeal before him with a delay of 120 days and in its condonation petition, the assessee was unable to demonstrate the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) discussed the issue elaborately with various case law and dismissed the appeal in-limine, by observing as under: “I am not satisfied that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for not presenting the appeal within the due date stipulated u/s 249(2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, this is not a fit case to condone the delay in filing the appeal as envisaged u/s 249(3) of the Act and, therefore, the

2 I.T.A. No. 101/Hyd/19 Manisha Lalit Lalwani, Hyd.

appeal cannot be admitted. Thus, the appeal is dismissed in limine, as not admitted” 3. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Before us, assessee filed an ‘affidavit’ confirming the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and reasons for such delay. Considering the fact that assessee is a house wife and undergone health issues during the period of delay. Further, assessee claims that the hearing notice was served on the assessee after the date of passing the order. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, we restore the file back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before him and decide the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the matter.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 12th , 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 12th June, 2019. kv Copy forwarded to: 1. Manisha Lalit Lalwani, 102, Maruti Villa, Green Apartments, Vikrampuri, Hyderabad – 500 026. 2. ITO, Ward – 10(5), Hyderabad 3. CIT(A) - 6, Hyderabad 4. Pr. CIT - 6, Hyderabad 5. The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6. Guard File

More judgments on Section 249(2)(b)

All 25 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →