Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file his return of income for AY 2009-10. Following AIR transactions data showing cash deposits, the assessment was reopened under Section 147, and a reassessment order was passed under Section 144 r.w.s 147. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but the appeal was dismissed due to delay.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee residing outside India, as well as issues with the service of the assessment order. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without adjudicating the merits, and whether the reassessment proceedings were valid.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 144, 147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
(Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Mahendra Ishwardas Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 187, Moto Vas, Mokhasan, Taluka Ward-1, Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar, Patan Gujarat-382740 [PAN : ADQPP 3859 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rushin Patel, AR Respondent by: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr DR Date of Hearing 17.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 03.01.2025 O R D E R
PER DR. B.R.R. 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 (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short) dated 29.08.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10.
The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows:- “(1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal. (2) Notice issued u/s 148 and the consequential reassessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 are bad in law.”
Shri Mahendra Ishwardas Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2009-10 - 2– 3. In this case, the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration. Since it was noticed from AIR transactions data that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.10,32,100/- in his savings bank account with the Axis Bank, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notices u/s 148 were issued and since there was no compliance to the notices, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.ws. 147 of the Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs.10,32,100/-
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee owing to delay in filing of appeal before him.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the assessee was residing outside India. He further contended that the assessment order was not initially served to the assessee, and it was only obtained from the Department at a later date, which contributed to the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Having gone through the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and records available before us, we find that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue de novo on merits, after issuing notice of hearing Shri Mahendra Ishwardas Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2009-10 - 3– afresh. The assessee shall comply to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.