AWADESH SURYANATH PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3875/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 December 2020AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that it ought to have been condoned on the basis of reasonable cause. The Tribunal also held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution and a delay of 73 days. The delay was attributed to the illness of a relative and lack of proper advice. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 42,93,792/- as bogus purchase.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and delay without considering the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None mentioned

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Hearing: 02.12.2020Pronounced: 03.12.2020

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] dated 5.12.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

2.

In this case the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 42,93,792/- as bogus purchase.

3.

Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 73 days in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the illness of the assessee relative and lack of proper advice by consultant. Thereafter he further dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

4.

Upon hearing learned Departmental Representative and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that the small delay ought to have been condoned on the basis of reasonable cause submitted. The same is condoned in substantial interest of justice. As regards dismissal of the appeal for non- prosecution I find that it is incumbent upon the learned CIT(A) to pass an order on the merits of the case and not dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution.

5.

For this proposition I place reliance upon following case laws. 1. CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom)302 2. CIT vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar(1969)74 ITR 1(SC)

Accordingly in the interest of justice I remit the issue raised in the appeal the file of the learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.

6.

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules by placing the result on notice board on 03.12.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →