Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) solely on grounds of limitation. The assessee claimed to have been prevented by sufficient cause and that the Assessing Officer passed the original order without adequate opportunity.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on limitation without proper verification was incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing reasonable opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation without considering sufficient cause and whether principles of natural justice were violated.
Sections Cited
144, 144B, 249(2), 249(3), 250, 10(23)(iiiad)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW
PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 06/11/2024 for the assessment year 2019-20. The grounds of appeal
of the assessee are as under: -
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Act is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the Ld. NFAC is against the principles of natural justice.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, that Ld. NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee solely on the grounds of non-compliance by the assessee and the delay in filing the appeal, without verifying the facts of the case. The assessee, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without deciding the appeal on merits as laid down in CIT v S. Chennaiappa Mudaliar (1969) SC (591) and Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills v Commissioner Excise & Customs (2014) 52 (SC) and Land Acqusition vs Mst. Katiji 1987 (SC).
Page 2 of 3 5 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC made an error in failing to appreciate that the assessee is an Educational Institution existing solely for Educational Purpose and has been running a School by the name of ‘H.M. Girls Inter College’ in village Sahaspur, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh and whereas the education institution has been duly recognized by the Uttar Pradesh Educational Board, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, making it eligible for exemption u/s 10(23)(iiiad) of the Act.
That the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. NFAC has been solely a procedure.”
2. In this case, vide assessment order dated 03/09/2021 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 read with section 144B of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 1961 (“Act”, for short) the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.36,51,488/-. The assessee filed appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal filed by the assessee in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) was beyond time limit prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Act. Vide aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 06/11/2024, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine on grounds of limitation.
2.1 At the time of hearing, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (“DR”, for short) for Revenue was heard. He relied on the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). However, he submitted that he had no objection if the issue in dispute is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
3. The Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue has been heard and materials placed on record have been perused. On perusal of the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 06.11.2024, it is found that the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s appeal for condonation of delay under section 249(3) of the Act despite the fact that the assessee