SRI. RAJA REDDY (HUF),BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 146/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 February 2020AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there were sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 1649 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of sufficient cause. The assessee claimed the delay was due to protracted litigation and a pending rectification application.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal also considered whether the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI. A. K. GARODIA & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Smt. Kabila, JCIT – DR
For Respondent: Smt. Kabila, JCIT – DR

ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 11/12/15 passed by Ld. CIT (A) – 7, Bangalore for assessment year 2007 – 08. At the outset Ld. AR submitted that as there was delay of 1649 days in filing appeal before Ld. CIT (A) the appeal was dismissed for want of sufficient cause. 2. Ld. AR submitted that assessee was involved in protracled litigation and therefore could not file appeal before Ld. CIT (A) within period of limitation.

Page 2 of 3 ITA 146/Bang/2016 A. Y : 2007 – 08 3. Ld. DR strongly opposed condonation of delay. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us.

4.

It has been submitted that assessee had filed a rectification application before Ld. AO under section 154 of the Act vide letter dated 04-02-2010. He submitted that Ld. AO while refusing rectification also initiated recovery proceeding by attaching bank accounts of assessee and balance in the account was recovered. He submitted that it was under these reasons that assessee was prevented from filing appeal within time as he was under bona fides belief that the rectification application upon consideration by Ld. AO would be allowed.

5. In our opinion there was sufficient reason in not filing appeal before Ld. CIT (A) and we find that Ld. CIT (A) should have decided the appeal on merits. We are therefore sending the present appeal back to Ld. CIT (A) by condoning the delay of 1649 days. We direct Ld. CIT (A) to pass a detailed order on merits of the issues contested by granting proper opportunity to assessee of being represented in accordance with law. In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07th February, 2020. Sd/- Sd/- (A. K. GARODIA) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 07th February, 2020. /MK/ Page 3 of 3 ITA 146/Bang/2016 A. Y : 2007 – 08 Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Bangalore.

Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on On Dragon Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 06-02-2020 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before 07-02-2020 JM/AM the second member Draft discussed/approved by 4. 07-02-2020 JM/AM Second Member.

5.

Approved Draft comes to the 07-02-2020 Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 07-02-2020 Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading the order on 10-02-2020 Sr.PS Website 8. If not uploaded, furnish the --- Sr.PS reason 9. File sent to the Bench Clerk 10-02-2020 Sr.PS 10. Date on which file goes to the AR 11. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.

12.

Date of dispatch of Order. Draft dictation sheets are 13. Sr.PS attached

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →