Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after the CIT(Appeals) dismissed its appeal ex-parte. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was delayed by one day, for which an affidavit was filed explaining the delay due to the assessee's accountant being on sick leave and a lack of awareness of the CIT(Appeals)'s order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal, holding that the delay was not due to negligence and the assessee had established sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice and remitted the matter back with a direction to provide another opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the one-day delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned and whether the order of the CIT(Appeals) should be set aside to allow the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Sections Cited
143(1), 11
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2013-2014 HELP US HELP THEM,…………………….………Appellant 4, Mukti Chambers, Clive Road, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal [PAN:AAATH5108C] -Vs.- Assistant Director of Tax,…………………...Respondent CPC, Bengaluru, Bangalore, Karnataka Appearances by: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: February 27, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: March 17, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-2, Guwahati dated 12th July, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2013-14.
The appeal is time barred by one day in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the President of the assessee-Trust filed an affidavit dated 26th October, 2024 saying that the assessee is not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and that time, (A.Y. 2013-2014) HELP US HELP THEM the Accountant of the assessee was on sick leave during June, 2024 and when assessee enquired the status of the appeal on or around 1st Week of September, 2024, it transpired that the said order was already passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). Immediately the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of one day in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay since the delay is not due to negligence on the part of assessee and the assessee has established sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-Trust filed its return of income on 31.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 declaring total loss of Rs.10,42,049/- and Form No. 10B was filed on 25.03.2014. Subsequently, ADIT, CPC, Bangalore served an order passed on 28.11.2014 under section 143(1) disallowing the entire amount of Rs.23,65,387/- being amount applied to charitable purposes in India during the year under consideration.
Aggrieved with the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee-Trust preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-2, Guwahati dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte vide order dated 12th July, 2024 upholding the order of ld. Assessing Officer passed under section
Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
At the time of hearing, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that ld. CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order dated 12th July, 2024 by upholding the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer without considering the allowable deduction for application of income under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, he pleaded to delete the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the taxable income at Rs.13,23,358/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate its claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. (A.Y. 2013-2014) HELP US HELP THEM CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 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, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/03/2025.