RAM CHANDER CHILLAR,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-11(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2212/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 February 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Dr. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 30-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) noting reasonable cause. It held that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits even in an ex-parte situation and remitted the matter for de-novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the order of the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal for delay without discussing merits, is under consideration. The delay was attributed to issues with the tax professional and the assessee's medical condition as a senior citizen. The NFAC had passed an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on delay without adjudicating on merits, and whether a reasonable opportunity was provided to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 250,Section 249(2),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Hearing: 10.02.2025

Assessee by : Shri Gurjeet Singh Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai, Additional CIT DR Date of hearing : 10.02.2025 Date of : 20.02.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER PER DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 19.08.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) Delhi u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after also called ‘the Act’) which in turn is arising out of the Assessment Order passed u/s 250 dated 28.12.2017.

2.

The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. Because the action of Ld CIT(A)-NFAC is being challenged on facts & law for dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, despite there being sufficient causes with the assessee for not filing the appeal in time as per section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which obstructed his action to file the appeal within the time limit. The appellant prays that the delay be condoned and appeal should be taken up for hearing.

2. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessment order being passed is in violation of the principle of natural justice and without giving adequate time and opportunity to the appellant to present the case.

3.

Because the action for initiation, continuation and conclusion of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 at an assessed income of Rs 36,01,790/- is being challenged on facts and law.

4. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law for making addition of Rs. 19,35,875 as unexplained investment u/s 69 whereas per assessee said amount has been invested out of disclosed sources.

5. For any consequential relief and/or legal claim arising out of this appeal and for any addition, deletion, amendment and modification in the grounds of appeal

before the disposal of the same in the interest of substantial justice to the assessee.

3. At the outset ld. CIT(A) submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay of 30 days and has also not dealt with the merits of the case. Prayer made for grant of one more opportunity has been given for going back before ld. CIT(A). It is also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A) was solely on ground of the Tax Professional who did not inform the assessee nor took any action for filing the appeal.

4.

On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted that there was an inordinate delay by 30 days.

5.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. In the impugned order. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal by not condoning the delay of 30 days in filing of appeal. The reasons cited by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal mainly includes delay in receipt of bank statement and poor medical conditions of the appellant who is a Senior Citizen. Considering the same that there was a reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. We condone the delay of 30 days in filing of appeal before ld. CIT(A).

6.

So far as merits of the case are concerned perusal of the impugned order, reveals that it has been passed ex-parte qua the assessee. The Id. CIT(A) has merely dismissed the appeal in limine, without discussing anything on merits of the issues. The settled position of law mandates that the ld.CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issues raised in appeal on merits as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act giving reasons thereof. In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT (Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay/(2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that Id.CIT(A) NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an ex parte order. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Id. Counsel for the assessee and there being no objection from the side of ld. Departmental Representative, we in the interest of justice deem it proper to give an opportunity to the assessee. In view thereof without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues on merits in the instant appeals are being remitted to the file of Id.CIT(A) for de- novo adjudication. Assessee is at liberty to file any evidence as it deems expedient and ld.CIT(A) shall consider all the submissions of the assessee and pass the orders in conformity with the provisions envisaged u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is also directed to provide correct email id to the department for receiving the hearing notices from the ITBA portal. Assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the Id.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law.

7.

Thus Findings of the ld.CIT(A) are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the year under appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 20th day of February, 2025.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →