Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. For AY 2011-12, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for being time-barred without addressing merits, with the assessee citing the Director's medical illness as the cause for delay. For AY 2012-13, the assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to present its case.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay for AY 2011-12, acknowledging the medical illness as reasonable cause, and remitted both assessment years (AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13) back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) for AY 2011-12 should be condoned. 2. Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, HON’BLE
BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & 2814/Del/2024 Asstt. Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Durga Apparels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 7(4), L-93, Chanakaya Place, C.R. Bldg., Part-II, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi – 59 (PAN: AABCD2546E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 24.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.03.2025 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP : These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders dated 04.3.2020 & 04.08.2023 respectively passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12 & 2012-13.
At the outset, with regard to assessment year 2011-12, Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the same on account of limitation and even without deciding the same on merits. Hence, he requested to condone the delay in dispute and remit back the issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Ld. DR has no objection to this proposition.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in dispute and even had not discussed the issues on merits and dismissed the appeal on account of limitation. In our considered opinion, reasonable cause viz. medical illness of the Director has been attributed for delay in filing the appeal, hence, the delay in dispute is hereby condoned before the Ld. CIT(A) and in view of the factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings. Resultantly, the Assessee’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is allowed for statistical purposes.
As regards assessment year 2012-13 is concerned, Ld. AR has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not given adequate opportunity to canvass his case properly. Hence, it is requested that one opportunity may be granted to canvass the case before the Ld. CIT(A) properly. Ld. DR did not have any objection to this proposition.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, in view of the factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the 2 | P a g e proceedings. Resultantly, the Assessee’s appeal for AY 2012-13 is also allowed for statistical purposes 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24.03.2025.