Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee faced a delay of 4 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and a significant delay before the CIT(A). The assessee explained the delay before the Tribunal as being out of station, and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to diligently prosecute the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay before the Tribunal, citing reasonable cause. For the delay before the CIT(A), the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea regarding the ongoing prosecution of a related claim before the AO and decided to give an opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delays in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are condonable, and whether the appeal should be restored for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
143(1), 154, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 12/01/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of The Vijaya Kumar Reddy Challa (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal.
It is no�ced from the record that there is a delay of 04 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to condona�on of delay, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 28/05/2024 wherein the assessee explained that since he was out of sta�on during the period, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed �me limit. On a perusal of the affidavit and the reasons advanced by the assessee for belated filing of the appeal, we are of the opinion that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the s�pulated �me and therefore, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
At the outset, learned Authorized Representa�ve (“learned AR”) submi�ed that the assessment order was passed on 6/8/2021, during the COVID pandemic period and by the �me itself there has been correspondence and the request of the assessee to consider the cash seized on 4/12/2018 to the tune of Rs. 45,00,000/- in terms of Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”) Circular No. 20/2017, dated 12/06/2017 as a part of advance tax only and ul�mately the request of the assessee for rec�fica�on of the processing of return of income under sec�on 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was finally disposed of by order dated 15/11/2022 passed under sec�on 154 of the Act. Learned AR, therefore submi�ed that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order under sec�on 143(3) of the Act and it is only due to the prosecu�on of the claim before the learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) by way of so many le�ers from 26/2/2021 to 10/11/2022, the assessee could not properly conduct his appeal. Learned AR submi�ed that the order under sec�on 154 of the Act was passed on 15/11/2022 whereas the assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A) by 23/2/2023, but the learned CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and disposed of the appeal ex-parte.
Learned Departmental Representa�ve (“learned DR”) vehemently opposed the condona�on pe��on and submi�ed that not only there was delay before the learned CIT(A) in preferring the appeal but also the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal diligently and he did not comply with Page 2 of 4 the no�ces issued and therefore, the learned CIT(A) had no op�on but to decide the appeal ex-parte.
We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. The plea of the assessee as to prosecu�ng the claim to consider the cash of Rs. 45,00,000/- seized on 4/12/2018 as a part of advance tax in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 20/2017 (supra) remains un-contradicted and ul�mately such ma�er was disposed of by order dated 15/11/2022. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A) by 23/2/2022. In view of the plea of the assessee that due to the prosecu�on of the ma�er before the learned AO on the very same aspect as that was involved in the appeal before the learned CIT(A), the assessee could not present his appeal before the learned CIT(A) within �me and could not bestow his a�en�on to the First Appellate Proceedings, we are of the considered opinion that giving an opportunity, on the condi�on of the assessee paying cost of ₹ 5000/-to the Prime Minister Relief Fund, the assessee would meet the ends of jus�ce.
With this view of the ma�er, we set-aside the impugned order and to restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits. Assessee is directed to be diligent in ge�ng the appeal disposed of on merits. Grounds are answered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for sta�s�cal purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on the 17th January, 2025.