Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on the ground that it was not a valid appeal, allegedly presented beyond the period of limitation and with deficiencies. The assessee had filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 15-03-2016.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without any legal ground. It was found that the appeal was not barred by limitation, and the deficiencies pointed out were either not valid or were addressed.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal as invalid and barred by limitation, or if the grounds for dismissal were legally tenable.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “ B ” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 1368/JPR/2024
ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER On 16-09-2024, an appeal filed by the appellant – assessee before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2013-14 came to be dismissed while observing that the appeal was not a valid appeal. This brings the assessee before this Appellate Tribunal.
ANIL KUMAR NANDWANA VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 2. The appeal was filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A), feeling aggrieved by the assessment order dated 15-03-2016, passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, and thereby computing the total income of the applicant at Rs.9,13,000/- and long term capital gain at Rs.57,60,740/-, for the reasons recorded therein.
Arguments heard. File perused. 4. ld.AR for the appellant has submitted that ld. CIT(A) has wrongly observed in the impugned order that the appeal filed there was presented beyond prescribed period of limitation i.e after 65 days’ delay, whereas, actually there was no delay as the applicant had initially presented Form 35 manually within prescribed period of limitation. In support of his contentions, the ld.AR for the appellant presented before the Bench, in the course of arguments, copy of memorandum of appeal presented manually in the office of Ld. CIT(A).
Above said memorandum of appeal was manually presented on 18-04-2016. The impugned assessment order is dated 15-03-2016. As finds mentioned in Form No.35, said order was served on the assessee on 20-3-2016.
Learned DR for the department has pointed out that there were deficiencies in the appeal presented before Learned CIT(A), and despite notices issued, the appellant did not make good the deficiencies, and as such, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal observing that same was not a valid appeal.
ANIL KUMAR NANDWANA VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 7. As regards non compliance with notices issued by the office of Ld. CIT(A), to make deficiencies good, Ld. AR for the appellant has rightly pointed out that from the screen shots of said notices taken from the income tax portal, same appear to have been issued at some e-mail ID, other than the one which finds mentioned in Form No.35. In this situation, no fault can be attributed to the appellant in non appearance before Ld. CIT(A) in response to the notices.
Record reveals that as observed by Learned CIT(A), Form 35 filed on 23-06- 2016, was incomplete as there was no mention of grounds of appeal
. In this regard, the ld.AR for the appellant has rightly pointed out that in para 13 of copy of Form 35, which forms part of the appeal presented before the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal, 04 grounds find mentioned therein. In view of the said grounds in the said column, it cannot be said that said appeal suffered from any such deficiency. In this situation, it cannot be said that the same was barred by limitation.
9. As a result, we find that ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal presented by the assessee, without any legal ground. Result
10. For the above reasons and findings, present appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and consequently, the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) is restored to its original number with direction that same shall be disposed of by ANIL KUMAR NANDWANA VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR Learned CIT(A) afresh, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. File be consigned to the record room, after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 24 /03/2025.