CHERIAMMAL MUMTAZEER,KANNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, KANNUR, KANNUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 218/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ambiguous for not providing reasons for rejecting the delay condonation request. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The appellant, a wholesale fruit merchant, filed a return for AY 2017-18. The AO completed assessment making a disallowance of Rs. 31,86,000/- under Section 40A(3). The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action but dismissed the appeal due to a 172-day delay without considering the assessee's explanation for condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing an appeal due to delay without properly considering the application for condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 26.03.2025Pronounced: 08.04.2025

O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Uadipur [CIT(A)] dated 16.01.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a wholesale fruit merchant. The appellant filed return of income for AY 2017-18 on 19.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 5,81,430/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at Rs. 37,67,430/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of Rs. 31,86,000/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

Cheriammal Mumtazeer 4. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, I find that the appellant filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 172 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), dismissed the appeal without considering the explanation of the appellant.

5.

Thus, the order passed by the CIT(A) suffers from ambiguity and the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay without giving reasons as to how the explanation tendered by the appellant does not constitute sufficient cause for delay.

6.

In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 8th April, 2025.

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →