Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals against CIT(A) orders for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 were dismissed in limine due to non-appearance. The assessee sought condonation for a 30-day delay in filing appeals before ITAT, citing tax consultant's ignorance and circumstances arising from the director's death. The original assessments involved additions under Section 14A, disallowances of miscellaneous expenses, and under Section 194C, and one assessment order was revised under Section 263.
Held
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it. Reviewing the affidavits, the Tribunal found valid reasons for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A), including the death of the director and communication issues. The ITAT ruled that appeals should be decided on merits, not in limine, and thus set aside the CIT(A) orders, remitting the cases back for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether delay in filing appeal should be condoned; whether CIT(A) was justified in dismissing appeals in limine due to non-appearance without considering merits.
Sections Cited
14A, 143(3), 263, 194C, 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