Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2021-22. The CIT(A) did not condone a delay of over 10 days in filing the appeal, dismissed it for lack of sufficient cause, negligence, and non-furnishing of documentary evidence (Form 16, 26AS), and restricted the TDS claim based on a Section 143(1) intimation. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred by relying on assessment year 2020-21 data, leading to an excess assessment of income.
Held
The ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, noting that the assessee had filed a condonation petition before it and to ensure natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to dispose of the appeal without inference from previous observations, and the assessee was cautioned to cooperate promptly.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and dismissing it on merits without proper consideration of evidence, and whether the CIT(A) incorrectly relied on prior assessment year data to determine the income and TDS claim.
Sections Cited
249(2), 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Appearances by: Shri P.K. Sanghai, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: June 23, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: July 22, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurugram dated 09.07.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2021-2022.
The appeal is time barred by more than 10 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Though the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ld. 1 (A.Y. 2021-2022) Neha Hridaya Addl./JCIT(Appeals) and prayed to condone the delay, but the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay and without condoning the delay decided the appeal on merits as there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay for non-filing of condonation petition within the specified time limit before him in conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act. She further submitted that the she was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Due to that, the ld. CIT(Appeals) decided the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal as well as negligent attitude on the part of the appellant. The ld. CIT(Appeals) with regard to the non-furnishing of Form 16 and Form 26AS for the assessment year 2020-21 from the side of assessee in support of declared income in the return filed, dismissed it in absence of documentary evidence.
2.1. With regard to the contention of assessee against the short credit of TDS, the ld. Addl/JCIT(Appeals) restricted the TDS claim i.e. short credit of TDS to Rs.5,41,214/- relying on the intimation order u/s. 143(1) instead of TDS claim of assessee at Rs.4,46,791/- as the ld. Assessing Officer, CPC accepted the returned income of the assessee while processing the ITR and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. It was the submission of the assessee that ld. (A.Y. 2021-2022) Neha Hridaya Addl/JCIT(Appeals) wrongly passed the appellate order based on the data relating to preceding assessment year 2020-21 resulting the income processed was excess than the actual income. The ld. Counsel also contended that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has wrongly taken the returned income of the assessee at Rs.38,99,080/- on the basis of data of preceding assessment year, which resulted the excess assessed income by Rs.2,78,464/- and it ought to have been rectified at Rs.36,20,616/- as the returned income for the year under consideration.
The ld. Departmental Representative at the time of hearing contended to uphold the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals).
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation petition mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to decide the case on merit. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide it afresh with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus,
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/07/2025.