MR. SANTOSH AGARWAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2099/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 February 2020AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to represent the case. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but the assessment was completed with an addition of Rs. 72,00,000/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine due to non-representation and delay in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 249(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Kuldip SinghDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 22.01.2020Pronounced: 24.02.2020

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A)-18, New Delhi dated 06.02.2017.

2.

Following the grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the circumstances in which an order u/s 144 of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed by assuming that the assessee has not filed the return of income. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine despite of the fact that the appeal has been filed within time limits of Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant on merits.”

3. The assessee is engaged in the business of export of stoles, scarfs and had filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs.15,68,503/- on 14.06.2010 for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessment has 2 Santosh Agarwal been completed by making addition of Rs.72,00,000/- on account of purchase of property. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A) against the addition. The ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine owing to non-representation on the part of the assessee and non- submission of required explanation for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. The ld. CIT (A) held that the limitation cannot be condoned where the party is negligent and callous in filing the replies.

4.

Before us during the hearing, the ld. AR submitted that owing to change of address, the notices could not be received by the assessee and pleaded that given an opportunity he would comply to all the requirements of the authorities. The ld. DR in principle objected for remanding the matter back to the ld. CIT (A).

5.

We have gone through the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) and hold that interest of justice would be well served if the assessee is given an opportunity to represent the case. Hence, keeping in view the facts of the case, we hereby remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) to adjudicate the issue on merits by way of a speaking order. We hereby direct the assessee to promptly comply with all the procedures pertaining to condonation of delay and notices issued by the revenue authorities pertaining to merits of the case and not to seek any unnecessary adjournments.

More judgments on Section 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →