Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2017-18, where the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's first appeal as barred by limitation. The assessee contended that the assessment order was served late (on 16/02/2021, despite being dated 30/11/2019), and the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity to explain the delay before confirming an addition under Section 69A.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to substantiate the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation of delay and directing the assessee to furnish all relevant documents.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay, and consequently, without deciding the appeal on its merits.
Sections Cited
69A, 144, 249(2)(c), 249(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23/10/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine being barred by limitation while passing the impugned order. He has pointed out that the assessee has explained the reason for the delay as the service of the assessment order was only on 16/02/2021 and thereafter, the appeal was filed before the learned CIT (A) on 2/3/2021. The learned CIT (A) without giving any appropriate opportunity to the assessee has dismissed the appeal by treating the same as invalid being barred by limitation. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A) is in violation of the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh consideration.
On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has issued notice to the assessee, but there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the notice issued by the learned CIT (A) and therefore, the learned CIT (A) was having no option but to pass the impugned order ex-parte. Since the appeal of the assessee was barred by limitation as filed after more than one year, therefore, the same was dismissed being barred by limitation in the absence of any sufficient reason to explain the delay. He has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT (A).
We have considered the rival submission as well as the relevant material available on record. The assessee in Form-35 has stated that the assessment order was served on the assessee only on 16/02/2021 and thereafter, the appeal before the learned CIT (A) was filed on 2/3/2021. This fact is recorded in paras 3 & 4 of the impugned order as under:
The learned CIT (A) did not accept this explanation and reasons for filing the appeal belatedly and finally dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation in paras 6.18 and 7 as under:
It is pertinent to note that once the assessee has stated in Form-35 that the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act was served on 16/02/2021, then before rejecting the said explanation of the assessee, the assessee ought to have been given an appropriate opportunity to substantiate and file the better particulars on this issue. The learned CIT (A) appears to have issued only one notice just before passing the impugned order and therefore, in our considered opinion, an appropriate opportunity of hearing was not given to the assessee before passing the impugned order and dismissing the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication including the condonation of delay. The assessee is Page 4 of 5 also directed to produce relevant record including the application/ affidavit to explain the cause of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A).
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.