Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's income was enhanced by the AO from Rs. 23,94,380/- to Rs. 36,53,150/- by denying the claim under section 10(2A) of the Act. The assessee filed a first appeal with a delay of 230 days, which was refused to be condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee contended that the delay was due to lack of proper advice from tax consultants.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of delay. It was noted that substantive justice should be prioritized, and delay should only be condoned in extenuating circumstances. The assessee was granted a chance to present their case before the first appellate authority.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the first appeal, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 10(2A), 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Jatin Khara, 74, Sarat Bose Road, Bhawanipur, Kolkata - 700025 [PAN: ASDPK2651E] .....................…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-30(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Dakshin 2, Gariahat Road, (South), Kolkata - 700068 ...............…..….................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Gautam Patra, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of concluding the hearing : 20.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 03.03.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The present appeal arises from order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./JCIT(A)-6, Mumbai [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’).
1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO, CPC is seen to have enhanced the income from Rs. 23,94,380/- to Rs. 36,53,150/-. This was done by denying the claim u/s 10(2A) of the Act. Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. AO, the matter was carried in first appeal admittedly with a delay of 230 days. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on several authorities and refused to condone the said delay.
“1. THAT the CPC Bangalore processed my return u/s. 143(1) and assessed my income of Rs. 36,53,150/- instead of my return income of Rs. 23,94,380/- without any reason and disallow my claim u/s. 10(2A). Against the intimation I preferred the appeal before the CIT (A). AddL/JCIT (A)-6, Mumbai rejected my appeal without going through the facts and merits of the case.
Sir, during the year I have received "Profit from Partnership Firm" of Rs. 12,58,770-As per section 10(2A) share of profit from partnership firm is exempt from income tax in the hands of the Partner, but at the time of processing my return, this profit was treated (from partnership firm) as a business profit and imposed the tax on the above profit without any reason.
Further Sir, delay filing of appeal due to the reason that, there is no proper advice by my tax consultants. Add/ JCIT without going the facts and merits of the case just rejected my appeal.
4. That any other grounds of appeal
may kindly be allowed at the time of hearing.”
2. On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to hear the appeal with the help of Ld. DR. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) disbelieved the assessee’s contention that due to non- availability of proper tax advice, he could not file the said appeal. On a careful consideration of the facts in this case it is clear that there was no reason available with the Ld. CIT(A) to reject the appeal on the ground that there was a delay. It is a settled position that an assessee should have recourse to substantive justice and it is only in extenuating circumstances should the delay be not condoned. In this case, we find that the assessee deserves a chance to establish his case before the first appellate authority and hence we condone the delay in filing of first appeal and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the case on its merit.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 03.03.2025