SRI RANGAPPA KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1064/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 January 2020AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay to be bona fide. The Tribunal set aside the issue back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 182 days. The assessee claimed a bona fide belief that penalty would not be levied if the addition in the assessment order was accepted, leading to the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned based on the assessee's bona fide belief.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES : “A’’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI B. R. BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

Hearing: 09.01.2020Pronounced: 14.01.2020

O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 01/03/19 passed by Ld. CIT(A), Bangalore for assessment year 2014 – 15.

15 2. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that, there was delay of 182 days in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that on advice received from his CA/Tax Consultant, he did not file appeal within the period of limitation. It has been submitted that, only when penalty proceedings were initiated and assessee received order under section 271(1)(c), he approached some other CA/Tax Consultant, who advised him to file appeal against assessment order passed under section 143 (3). 2.1. Ld. AR submitted that, appeal was filed on 27/07/17 immediately within a period of one month on receipt of penalty order dated 27/06/17. He submitted that assessee was made to believe that in the event addition under assessment order passed was accepted, penalty would not be levied. Ld. AR, thus submitted that, it was under this bona fide belief, assessee did not file appeal before Ld. CIT (A) within the period of limitation against assessment order under section 143 (3) of the Act.

3.

Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance upon order passed by Ld. CIT(A).

4.

We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed appeal filed by assessee, rejecting application of condonation of delay. Considering the reasons for not preferring appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and that appeal has been filed belatedly only on receipt of penalty order establishes the bona fides of assessee. We therefore set aside this issue back to Ld. CIT (A) to decide the issue on merits. Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass detailed order after

15 giving proper opportunity to assessee of being represented as per law. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order passed in the open court on 14th January, 2020.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →