What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay, as the order was allegedly in the spam folder and noticed only upon receiving a recovery notice. The assessee requested the case be set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without deciding the case on merits, and if the case should be remanded for a decision on merits.

Karan Kumar Singhi vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Singhi – AR

For Respondent: Shri S P Walimbe – DR

Hearing: 25/07/2022Pronounced: 25/07/2022

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune, dated 04.04.2019 for the A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “I am not agreeing with computation and order made by Assessing Officer. During the assessment I had re-prepared my true and correct return and gross receipts of Rs.83,43,350/- was taken into consideration and a net profit of Rs.6,67,468/- was to be taxed and a tax of Rs.78,640/- (Tax and Interest till then) was offered to be paid by met. Demand calculated by the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to m and if the appeal is not allowed to be proceeded will be against the law. I am genuine in the eye of law and offered proper profit for tax in my computation of income.

A.Y. 2013-14 Mr.Karan Kumar Phoolchand Singhi Vs. ITO, Ward-8(4), Pune (A)

Hope above grounds of appeal is valid for taking the matter in appeal”

2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) at the outset stated that the ld.CIT(A) has not decided the case on merit. The ld.CIT(A) has merely dismissed, because, there was delay in filing appeal. Though it was submitted before the ld.CIT(A) that the order under section 143(3) of the Act, which was sent to the assessee by E-mail was lying in Spam Folder, therefore, could not noticed it. The assessee only realized when recovery notice was served on assessee by the Department. However, the ld.CIT(A) merely dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.

The ld.AR requested that case may be kindly set-aside to the file of the ld.CIT(A).

The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is a fact that the ld.CIT(A) has not decided the case on merit. Therefore, we set-aside the case to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall decide the case on merit after giving opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall file all the documents necessary information before the ld.CIT(A) at A.Y. 2013-14 Mr.Karan Kumar Phoolchand Singhi Vs. ITO, Ward-8(4), Pune (A)

the earliest. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

KARAN KUMAR SINGHI,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8 (4), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments