Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 105 days. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 for escaped income after a survey, adding ₹.2 crores received in cash. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 23-day delay without condoning it.
Held
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be bonafide and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay, adjudicate the issues on merits, and afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, subject to a payment of ₹.10,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, and whether the Tribunal should direct condonation of delay and adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
133A, 148, 147, 142(1), 143(2), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 105 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The assessee raised 4 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the condonation petition filed for the delay of 23 days in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. We note that the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2012-13 on 13.04.2014 admitting income at ₹.39,24,180/-. A survey operations under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] were carried out at the office premises of M/s. Tirupathi Brothers Film Media Pvt. Ltd. on 08.10.2013. Consequent to survey operations and enquiries conducted thereafter, M/s. Tirupathi Brothers Film Media Pvt. Ltd. filed a letter dated 10.10.2013 that they have paid ₹.2 crores by cash to the assessee and also admitted as income for AY 2012-13. Thus, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 06.12.2018 for the reason that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 05.07.2019 calling for details. The assessee filed return of income on 04.09.2019 in compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on 05.12.2019. During the course of assessment proceedings, when the Assessing Officer confronted with the findings in the case of M/s. Tirupathi Brothers Film Media Pvt. Ltd., the AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee was not in receipt of ₹.2 crores by way of cash and prayed to complete the assessment on merits. Since the assessee has denied receipt of ₹.2 crores and no steps taken to cross examine the payer, the Assessing Officer added the unaccounted professional receipt of ₹.2 crores received by the assessee in cash to the returned income of the assessee and completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 10.12.2019 assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.2,39,24,180/-.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with delay of 23 days in filing the appeal. Since the ld. CIT(A) has not satisfied with the reasons stated by the assessee for belated filing of appeal, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay as well as deciding the issues raised in the appeal on merits. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The ld. AR Shri K. Vaitheeswaran, Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the short delay of 23 days in filing the appeal, where the assessee had given sufficient reasons for the delay that the assessee had to carry out his professional commitments and thereby filing of the appeal was delayed. He argued that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technicalities without adjudicating the case on merits and argued vehemently that the ld. CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice. The ld. AR prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and suitable directions may be passed for adjudication of the issues on merits.
The ld. DR Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that admittedly, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 23 days with a prayer to condone the said delay, which was summarily rejected by the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. We note that the reasons stated by the assessee for condonation of delay has been reproduced at para 5 of page 10 of the impugned order. On perusal of the said reasons, considering facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of natural justice, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee subject to the condition of payment of ₹.10,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, and the ld. CIT(A) shall satisfy the payment of cost and decide the issue on merits after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.