Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's original and revised returns for AY 2016-17 showed a property transaction of Rs.98,51,000/- as escaped income, leading to an assessment under Section 147/144 with an addition. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 98-day delay in filing, which the CIT(A) refused to condone.
Held
The Tribunal found that the delay was due to the assessee's representative's failure and, in the interest of justice, condoned the delay. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a re-examination of the issues on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
The key issues were the condonation of a 98-day delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) and whether the case should be remanded for a decision on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 139(5), 147, 148, 142(1), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Assessment Year: 2016-17 Samaresh Paul……...…... .……………………………………..….……….Appellant 16C, Bose Pukur Road, Kolkata – 700042. [PAN: AEUPP8135R] vs. ITO, Ward-25(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Amit Agarwa & T. Wasi, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT- Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 27, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : February 28, 2025 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against an order dated 29.10.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 by declaring total income of Rs.7,42,850/-. The assessee thereafter filed his revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act by declaring the same total income. However, it was noticed that the assessee has made property transaction of Rs.98,51,000/- during the F.Y 2015-16 relevant to A.Y 2016-17 which has been escaped within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued followed by notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. However, the assessee did not turn up in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made the assessment u/s 147/144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.98,51,000/- by assessing total income at Rs.1,05,93,850/-.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order. However, there was delay of 98 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee. The assessee could not explain any proper reason before the ld. CIT(A) for condoning such delay, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal stating that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) was an ex parte order without considering the prayer for condonation of delay, which is not proper. The ld. AR stated that various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) were in fact not received by the assessee due to failure on the part of then authorized representative to communicate the assessee. Therefore, in the interests of justice, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee so as to the matter may be heard on merits after condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the ld. DR objected the prayer made by the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that such prayer at this stage may not be entertained and the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed in limine.
We, after hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, find that in the instant case, there was a delay 98 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee could not explain it properly due to failure on the part of the assessee’s representative to properly address the issues involved and the matter remained unrepresented and went against the assessee. We, therefore, in the interests of justice and fair play, deem it necessary to remand the whole issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to re-examine the issues after condoning the delay of providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply to the notices issued during the remand proceedings without any fail.
In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 28th February, 2025.