Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order for A.Y. 2016-17, but the CIT(A) dismissed it due to a 54-day delay. The assessee claimed the delay was caused by health issues (Hyper Tension and Vertigo) requiring bed rest, providing a medical certificate as proof.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the assessee's 54-day delay in filing the appeal and condoned it. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, specifically addressing the validity of the assessment reopening, after providing the assessee an appropriate opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before CIT(A); validity of assessment reopening under Section 147/148.
Sections Cited
147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12/08/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y.2016-17.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have provided further opportunity before deciding the appeal ex parte, requiring the assessee to file letters of confirmation from the creditors.
The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in completing the assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the notice u/s 148 is not validly issued and that therefore, the assessment is invalid.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the deposits made into the bank account of Rs.85,02,500/- as the income of the appellant. The learned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the said amount represents the business receipt and was deposited into the bank account and is already accounted for.
5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the credits to the extent of Rs.3,26,74,916/- are not properly explained. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have provided further opportunity to the appellant before holding that the appellant did not prove the cash credits aggregating to Rs.3,26,74,916/- 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the credits are genuine and the amount was received through banking channels and, therefore, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted the submissions made and allowed the appeal. 8. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
3. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was a delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) which was not condoned by the learned CIT (A) and consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed being barred by limitation. He has referred to the Page 2 of 5 relevant part of the impugned order and submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation for want of an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal belatedly. However, the assessee has duly filed an application for condonation of delay which is placed at page No.50 of the paper book. He has further submitted that the assessee has also duly explained the cause of delay in form No.35 itself, but ignoring all these facts and documents, the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal in limine.
On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) and submitted that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as barred by limitation.
We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The learned CIT (A) has reproduced the statement of facts at page No.2 as under: “The appellant is an individual doing Business in Mines the assessment year under consideration, during demonetization period. The Assessing officer completed the assessment u/s147 of the I.T act on 23-Feb-2024. The said order was served on 11/03/2024. Aggrieved with the said order the petitioner is fling appeal before the learned CIT (A) on 03/06/2024. In this regard the appellant humbly submit that the petitioner has been suffered from Hyper Tension and Vertigo from so long so doctor suggested to take bed rest from 01/04/2024 to 10/05/2024. Medical certificate issued Dr. ARJUN KUMAR AVVARU., (MBBS, MD. General Medicine) is annexed. Subsequently, on recovery from illness the petitioner approached the Advocate/Auditors; got the appeal papers prepared and fling the appeal ONLINE on 11/05/2024. The petitioner humbly submits that, there is a delay of 54 days in fling the beyond the control of the petitioner and is not Page 3 of 5
intentional. The petitioner, therefore, prays the learned CIT (A) to kindly condone the delay and pass appropriate orders in the matter.”
Thus, the assessee in the statement of facts has also explained the reasons for the delay of 54 days in filing of the appeal that the assessee was having some health issues and medical certificate was also annexed along with the statement of facts. We further note that the assessee also filed a petition for condonation of delay which reads as under: ““The appellant is an individual doing Business in Mines the assessment year under consideration, during demonetization period. The Assessing officer completed the assessment u/s147 of the I.T act on 23-Feb-2024. The said order was served on 11/03/2024. Aggrieved with the said order the petitioner is fling appeal before the learned CIT (A) on 03/06/2024. In this regard the appellant humbly submit that the petitioner has been suffered from Hyper Tension and Vertigo from so long so doctor suggested to take bed rest from 01/04/2024 to 10/05/2024. Medical certificate issued Dr. ARJUN KUMAR AVVARU., (MBBS, MD. General Medicine) is annexed. Subsequently, on recovery from illness the petitioner approached the Advocate/Auditors; got the appeal papers prepared and fling the appeal ONLINE on 11/05/2024. The petitioner humbly submits that, there is a delay of 54 days in fling the beyond the control of the petitioner and is not intentional. The petitioner, therefore, prays the learned CIT (A) to kindly condone the delay and pass appropriate orders in the matter.”
The assessee also annexed a medical certificate of the Doctor from Govt. Medical College, Kadapa. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the assessee had duly filed an application for condonation of delay and also filed a medical certificate to explain the cause of delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A), we are satisfied that the Page 4 of 5 assessee was having a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) is condoned.
Since the learned CIT (A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits, therefore, the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for deciding the appeal on merits and specifically the issues raised by the against the validity of the reopening of the assessment. Needless to say, the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.