Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was summarily dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to a delay of 17 days in filing. The assessee submitted that she was unaware of the re-assessment proceedings and had a reasonable cause for the delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the 17-day delay and that this delay should not prejudice her rights. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had passed an order under Section 144 and made double additions for the investment made by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal was condonable, and whether the AO had erred in passing an order with double additions.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR.BRR KUMARSHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
(Assessment Year: 2018-19) Meenakshi Yadav, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, J-804, Sorrel Apartments, Ward-4(1)(1), Applewoods Township, Ahmedabad. SP Ring Road, Shela, Ahmedabad-380058. [PAN No.ACJPY7040B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hardik Vora, AR Respondent by: Shri BP Srivastava, Sr. DR 19.12.2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 03.01.2025 O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in passing order within discussing the grounds on merits.
Meenakshi Yadav vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 - 2– 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in not considering that there was delay of only 17 days in filing an appeal for the reason that assessee was not aware of the re- assessment proceedings.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order without providing an opportunity of hearing through video conferencing 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming initiation of re-assessment proceedings.
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering that assessee had jointly purchased only one property during the year for a consideration of Rs.62,55,841/- and the alleged amount of Rs.1,25,11,682/- is a clerical error as same transaction is reflected twice on the insight portal.
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering that property is purchased out of income earned by her husband and ICIC Bank loan.
It is therefore prayed that the addition made by the assessing officer may please be deleted.
Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any grounds(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.
The appeal has been summarily dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A), owing to delay of 17 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee submitted that she is not well-versed with the technical procedure of assessment proceeding and therefore could not check her mails or Income- tax E-portal. However, having known about the passing of order, the assessee had filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). We find that the assessee had reasonable cause and delay of 17 days shall not prejudice the rights of the assessee to redress her grievances before the first appellate authority. Further, we also find that that the AO has passed order u/s.144 of Act and made addition twice, the amount of investment made by the assessee.
Hence, it was prayed that given an opportunity, due compliance will be made before the revenue authorities. Hence, the matter is being remand back to the AO for looking in to issue in toto and pass the order de novo.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 03.01.2025
Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 03.01.2025 Manish, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,