Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay, which the lower appellate authority (CIT(A)) did not condone. The original assessment was made under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with an addition of Rs. 14,13,484/- to the returned income. The assessee had appealed to the CIT(A) but the delay was attributed to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), taking into consideration the reasonable cause due to pandemic restrictions. Since the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the case should be remanded for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 250, 148, 234A, 234B, 208
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD
Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT Date of hearing : 09.07.2025 Date of : 15.07.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13 is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ADDL/JCIT(A), Udaipur u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 23.10.2025 which in turn is arising out of the Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 20.12.2019 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 17 days in filing of the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit is placed on record. On going through the contents of application and after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), I am of the considered view that for reasonable cause assessee could not file the appeal in time. Taking guidance from judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani V/s DCIT and others (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that “none should be deprived of an adjudication on merit unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal”., I hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1] On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, ld A.0 has erred in passing assessment order without serving the notice issued u/s 148 rws 147 of the IT Act and therefore assessment order, as well as, addition is void ab initio and bad in law and hence deserves to be annulled. 2] On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, ld A.O has erred in passing assessment order on the basis of alleged papers found at the premises of the third person, without granting an opportunity of being cross examine to the appellant. Thus, assessment order, as well as, addition is void ab initio and bad in law and hence deserves to be annulled. 3] On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, ld A.O has erred in making addition of Rs.1263484/-as undisclosed LTCG, without appreciating correct and factual facts of the transaction, and without granting an opportunity of being cross examine to the said persons. Thus, additions being made without supporting any provision of law are bad in law. 4] On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, ld A.O has erred in making addition of Rs. 1263484/-as undisclosed income, without providing the necessary evidences to the appellant, is violation of the natural justice, the assessment order cannot satisfy it legal validity and the assessment order passed by the AO may be treated as void ab initio and bad in law and hence deserved to be annulled. 5] On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the learned A.O has erred in charging the interest at Rs.221067/-, under the provision of section 2344, Rs.236313/-, under the provision of section 234A of the I T Act, even though appellant was not liable to file the return of income being not taxable and to pay advance tax under the provision of section 208 of the IT Act and interest u/s 234A & B ought to have been deleted.
6] The Appellate craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary time of hearing of the appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.
When the case called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee even though valid notice of hearing has been issued and date of hearing communicated to Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the last date of hearing. Therefore I proceed to adjudicate appeal with the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and available records.
The grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee’s appeal being barred by limitation. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the lower authorities.
I have heard Ld. DR and perused the record placed before me. The assessee is an individual and in the assessment framed for A.Y. 2012-13 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 20.12.2019, addition of Rs. 14,13,484/- has been made to the returned income of Rs. 1,39,980/- The assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on 03.07.2020. Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay even when the major delay was due to covid 2019 pandemic restrictions. Under these given facts and circumstances I am of the considered view that the delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. Further as Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the case, I remit back the issue raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 15th day of July, 2025.