Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order that dismissed their appeal due to a 48-day delay, without condoning it. The assessee argued that the delay was due to technical glitches on the Income Tax portal and issues with OTP generation, not malafide intention.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, considering the delay unintentional and beyond their control. They set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was unintentional and could be condoned due to technical glitches, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits.
Sections Cited
250, 1961, 143(1), 143(2), 142(1), 143(3), 54, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: SHRI R.K.PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], Delhi u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 19.10.2024 for the A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “Each ground is taken without prejudice to each other.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and [A] The learned AD has erred in imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) without considering the submission made by assessee and the id CIT A erred in confirming the same
2. The learned AO has erred in invoking both the limbs/charge of penalty while recording satisfaction in respect of one limb/charge Thus, to that extent, the penalty order passed by the AO suffers from infirmity and is bad in law and the id. CIT A erred in confirming the same
3. For want of specific limb/charge of penalty being considered, the penalty proceedings are void and cannot be acted upon. So the same needs to be set aside or cancelled 4 Without following principles of natural justice the AO has erred in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) needs to be cancelled since it is not in keeping with provisions of law and the Id. CIT A erred in confirming the same
5. The learned CIT Appeals erred in dismissing assessee's appeal by rejecting delay condonation request without affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The appellate proceedings, thus, suffer from principles of natural justice and needs to be set aside.
6. The assessee prays before your honour to afford and allow him an opportunity of being heard in interest of natural justice and on merits of the case as well, before the lower authorities or else to decide the matter if the honourable bench permits.
The assessee hereby requests for allowing any other relief as available under the law.
8 The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, and delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.”
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a HUF deriving income from business, capital gains and income from other sources, furnished return of income on 31.07.2014 declaring total income at Rs.1,74,682/-. The Return was processed under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny, ¬ices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. After considering the submission of the assessee, assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by determining total income at Rs.27,70,204/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.1,74,682/-. The above assessed income includes withdrawal of deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act of Rs.25 lakhs income from other sources of Rs.55,522/- and disallowance of expenses of Rs.40,000/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. In reply to the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the assessee furnished written submission. Since the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with reply of the assessee he consequently imposed penalty of Rs.2,94,119/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
After considering the submission of the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by not condoning the delay of 48 days. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal.
The ld.AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) is unjustified. LD AR submitted before the bench that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the time limit prescribed under statute. In this regard, he further submitted before the Bench that the procedure for preparing the memo of appeal was started well within the limits of 30 days after receipt of the penalty order. Even the challan of appeal fees was deposited within 30 days time limit, but the memo of appeal i.e.Form No.35 could not be uploaded on the Income Tax Portal, since at that particular time the Income Tax Portal was facing some technical glitches. Theld.AR also submitted that even the OTP was not coming on the Aadhar linked mobile at that particular point of time and as soon as the portal started functioning smoothly, the appeal was immediately uploaded, but in the mean time the delay of 48 days occurred. An affidavit in support of all these contentions was also produced before the Bench. Accordingly, ld.AR requested before the Bench that there was no malafide intention in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit and the assessee tried his level best to file the appeal in time. It was also brought to the knowledge of the Bench that the assessee raised grievances regarding technical glitches due to which the appeal memo Form No.35 could not be uploaded on the portal and the copy of the Screenshot wherein grievance was raised by the assessee has been placed in the paper book. Accordingly, ld.AR requested to set-aside the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and further requested to direct ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on the merits of the case after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
On the other hand, ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue relied on the order passed by Sub-ordinate Authorities and requested to confirm the same.
We have heard Ld.Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay of 48 days & without going into merits of the case. In this regard, we find that the assessee has furnished an affidavit wherein he has described all the [A] circumstances which led to file the first appeal belatedly. A perusal of affidavit makes it clear that the assessee informed the consultant well within time & also paid the challan of appeal fees well within 30 days time. But the appeal memo Form No.35 could not be uploaded on the Income tax portal due to some technical glitches. The grievances in this regard were also raised by the assessee & copy of screen shots of the same are also produced before the bench in the paper book. It was also experienced that OTP was also not reaching on the Aadhar linked mobile at that particular time due to technical glitches. It is the contention of the assessee that due to all such reasons the appeal Form No.35 could not be uploaded on the income tax portal which unfortunately resulted in 46 days delay in filing of first appeal. We find force in the arguments of the counsel of the assessee that the delay was unintentional & there was no malafide intention in filing the appeal with a delay of 46 days & the situation was beyond the control of the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts of the case & in the interest of justice without going into merits of the case we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld.CIT(A) & remand the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay of 46 days &decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case as per fact & law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by LD CIT(A) in this regard without seeking any adjournment under any pretext otherwise LD CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.