Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC which arose from an order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals in limine as they were barred by limitation.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority was for a reasonable cause and condoned it. Since the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the cases, the appeals were remitted back for necessary adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable, and if the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals in limine without adjudicating on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 270A, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “SMC”, JAIPUR
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
Date of hearing : 03.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / ORDER These two appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC dated 28.02.2025 arising out of the order for A.Y 2018-19 framed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 28.02.2023 framed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur.
In the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) was wrong and unjust in confirming the order u/s 147 rws 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab- initio deserves to be quashed as there was no escapement of income.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) was wrong and unjust in confirming in making the addition of Rs. 11,92,818/- on account of alleged bogus sales.
3. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
3. In , the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) was wrong and unjust in confirming the action of Assessing Officer who has levied the Penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio deserves to be quashed as there was no escapement of income.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) was wrong and unjust in confirming the action of Assessing Officer who has levied the Penalty of Rs. 7,37,162/- u/s 270A of the IT Act, 1961 on alleged bogus sales.
The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
With the assistance of ld. Counsel for the assessee, ld. Departmental Representative and on perusal of the records, I find that both the impugned orders are ex-parte and ld. CIT(A has dismissed the appeals in limine as they are barred by limitation.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before me that delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) is not intentional and assessee has not gained by delaying the appeal.
I observe that the delay in filing of the appeal before First Appellate Authority is for ‘reasonable cause’ and is therefore, condoned. Further since ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the appeals are remitted back file of the ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned orders are set aside and effective Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.