Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed four appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19. The CIT(A) had dismissed these appeals solely on the grounds of delay in filing. The assessee argued that reasons for the delay were provided in the statement of facts and requested condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanations for the delay plausible. In the interest of justice, it condoned the delay in filing all four appeals and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM : These are four appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders all dated 16.08.2024, passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-2018 & 2018- 2019.
Shri Miraj D Shah, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri P.N.Barnwal, ld.CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
At the out, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on account of delay. It was the submission that in the statement of facts, the assessee has provided the reasons for delay. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the same. It was also submitted that the delay may kindly be condoned and the 2 assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A), so that the assessee could be able to provide the details to substantiate its case for the year under consideration before the ld. CIT(A).
In reply, Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO. It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of CIT(A) would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted. 5 We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A) in all the cases under consideration, shows that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on account of delay. Though as per the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee in column No.14 has mentioned as no delay, however, a perusal of the statement of facts submitted in Form No.35, the assessee has categorically explained in regard to delay in filing all the four appeals before the ld. CIT(A), which are found to be plausible. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing all the four appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issues in all the appeals to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.