SECURED HOME FINANCE LIMITED,HOWRAH vs. P.C.I.T. - 5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, noting that the Revenue did not object. Regarding the appeals before the CIT(A), the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals in limine for non-appearance without deciding on merits. The Tribunal found that there is a catena of decisions stating that cases should be decided on merits, not dismissed summarily. After considering the affidavit filed by the assessee, which detailed the reasons for non-appearance (death of a director, miscommunication with tax consultants, and the COVID-19 pandemic), the Tribunal was inclined to restore the appeals back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the cases were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly noted that the CIT(A)'s order was not on merit.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Secured Home Finance Ltd., filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 and 2016-17. The appeals were filed with a delay. For AY 2015-16, the original assessment order under Section 143(3) was revised under Section 263, leading to a disallowance of Rs. 19,53,583/- by the AO. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-appearance. For AY 2016-17, the original assessment was under Section 144, and the subsequent appeal before the CIT(A) was also dismissed for non-appearance. The assessee contended that the non-appearance was due to miscommunication with the tax consultant following the death of a director, compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal should be condoned? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether the appeals before the CIT(A) should have been dismissed in limine for non-appearance, or should they have been decided on merits? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness) Assessee's arguments: - The delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal was due to the ignorance of tax consultants and should be condoned. - The assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) as the non-appearance was unintentional and caused by circumstances beyond its control, including the death of a director, miscommunication with the tax consultant, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee relied on an affidavit detailing these reasons. Revenue's arguments: - The Ld. D.R. did not raise any objection to condoning the delay before the Tribunal. - The Ld. D.R. supported the impugned order but did not object to sending the case records back to the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 14A,Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 194C,Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]
ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 05.07.2024 for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. First of all, we take for AY 2015-16 as a lead case.
The ld. Counsel at the very outset raised the issue of delay by submitting that the instant appeal has been filed after a delay of 30 days as the order received by the assessee on 05.07.2024 and as per the provision of Act it ought to be filed by 3.9.2024 wherein & 2059/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Secured Home Finance Ltd. the appeal has been filed on 04.10.2024. The submission of the ld. Counsel of the assessee is that the delay was caused because of ignorance of the tax consultants who was not properly carried the proceedings before the legal forum. The Ld. Counsel further submits that due to ignorance of the tax consultants authorized by the assessee, the appeal of the assessee has also been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) as there was also a long delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order. the Ld. Counsel submits that the assessee could not be suffered a lot because of ignorance of the tax consultants. The ld. Counsel prays to admit his appeal by condoning the delay.
The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay.
Going over the judicial pronouncement with respect to condonation of delay, the delay is hereby condoned and appeal has been taken for hearing.
Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee company filed its return of income declaring total loss of Rs. 3,98,506/-. The return of the assessee was selected to scrutiny. The AO after considering all the material facts made addition u/s 14A of Rs. 34,314/- and Rs. 23,048/- towards whole of miscellaneous expenses claimed by the assessee, assessed the return at a total income of Rs 57,360. Subsequently the order passed u/s 143(3) was picked up for revision u/s 263 of the Act by PCIT-5, Kolkata, cancelled the order of AO with a direction to pass a speaking and reasoned order. The AO in compliance to the order passed u/s 263 sent a show cause notice to the assessee asking the detailed information. The AO has held that the assesse has made payment to contractors to the tune of Rs. 64,945/- made u/s 194C of the Act at which tax is deductible at source. Therefore 30% of the sum of Rs. 65,11,945/- which comes to Rs. 19,53,583/- has been disallowed.
The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in limine on the ground that the assessee did not respond to any of the notices.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
& 2059/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Secured Home Finance Ltd. 7. The ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case in both the appeals has only submitted that the assessee has to be given an opportunity to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A) as there was sufficient reason for the assessee for non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. filed an affidavit in this context stating the reasons of non- appearance before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. D.R though supported the impugned order but did not raise any objection in sending the case record back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we find that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not on the merit rather dismissed on merit as the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). There is catena of decision the case should be decided on merit not in limine. We have gone through the Affidavit filed by the assessee which is as follows:
AY 2015-16
It is pertinent to mention here that order passed by the CIT(A) for want of prosecution, there is no discussion on merit. Going over the aforesaid facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Affidavit we are inclined to restore the appeal back to the filed of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside. The case is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 25th March, 2025
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026