Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2014-15, which had dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 281 days. The assessee claimed to have been critically ill during the assessment proceedings, which caused the delay. The Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings under Section 148A(b) after receiving information about the sale of an immovable property.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's critical illness was a sufficient reason to condone the delay. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for denovo adjudication on merits, with directions for the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the condonation of delay without considering the assessee's critical illness and the substantial questions of law involved in the appeal.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 148A(b), 50C, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] passed under [A] section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16; dated 23.11.2021. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the request for condonation of delay made by the appellant in the appropriate space provided in Form No 35 in a pedantic manner without providing an opportunity to substantiate the reasons cited for delay?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the request for condonation of delay without considering the fact that a substantial question was law was involved in the appeal in so far as the income from the immovable transaction was assessable in the hands of the family HUF and not in hands of the appellant as the rights of occupation (kabjedaar) & habitation (vahivaatdar) were indivisible and no partition of the rights was possible in law?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the request for condonation of delay without considering the fact that a substantial question was law was involved in the appeal regarding applicability of the provisions of Sec 50C of the Income Tax Act in so far as the appellant was not the owner of the property in question and as such his rights of occupation and habitation were not recognized as land or building or land and building in terms of the provisions of Sec 50C of the Income Tax Act.
4 Whether on the on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the appeal for reasons of delay without considering the grounds of appeal raised highlighting that there is no parity in the value adopted for land sold to Prashant Nahar & Others vide document number 2429/2014 at Rs.4,75,66,500/- with the land sold to Amit Nahar & others vide document number 2430/2019 at Rs 2,12,45,000/- others despite the fact that both the parcels of land form part of the same plot of land held as Kabjedaar (Person having Possession) and Vahivaatdaar (Person having right to habitate on the land)?”
Submission of ld.AR: 2. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the Assessee submitted that Assessee is an individual. Ld.AR further submitted that Assessee was critically ill during the period of assessment proceedings, there was a valid reason for delay which has been elaborately explained in Form No.35, hence ld.CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the case on merits. Ld.AR requested that hence, case may set-aside to the ld.CIT(A). On merits, ld.AR filed elaborate paper book containing 150 pages.
Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC].
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, assessee had not filed Return of Income for A.Y.2014- 15. The Assessing Officer had received information that assessee sold immovable property in which Assessee’s 1/5th Share is of Rs.35,50,000/-. Based on that, Assessing Officer recorded reasons and issued notice under section 148A(b) of the [A] Act on 02.06.2022. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, Assessee filed Return of Income on 17.02.2023. Since there was no compliance before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer assessed total Rs.35,39,447/- as assessee’s income. Assessee failed to comply any of the notices. The assessment order was passed on 23.05.2023. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay as under : “5.9 …………..
In view of the fact that appeal has been dismissed on the ground of rejection of petition for condonation of delay, merit of the case is not being discussed.”
4.1 Admittedly, there was delay of 281 days in filing appeal before ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay.
4.2 Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), Assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the order of ld.CIT(A) and noted that there is no submission before the ld.CIT(A) by the Assessee. We have perused the Form No.35 filed by the Assessee. It is observed that assessee was critically ill during the period. This being the more than sufficient reason, to condone the delay. Therefore, we are of the opinion that ld.CIT(A) needs to condone the delay. Accordingly, we set- aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication and decide the appeal on merits. The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee shall file necessary documents before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.