MOHAMMED AKRAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1606/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 December 2019AY 2010-113 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 ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's health issues. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 131 days, citing health issues and providing a medical certificate. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay. The assessee appealed this decision to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. The validity of the reassessment proceedings and additions made under Section 69A were also raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69A,Section 148(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri. C. Suresh Kumar, FCA
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh G. R, Standing Counsel
Hearing: 19.11.2019Pronounced: 26.12.2019

This is an appeal filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-7, Bengaluru, both dated 17.05.2019, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are as under:-

1.

That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad, erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay of 131 days in filing the appeal even though the appellant demonstrated that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for delay on filing the appeal.

Page 2 of 3 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay even though the appellant has explained that the delay in filing the appeal is due to the health issues and a medical certificate is filed.

4. That the notice u/s. 148 is not valid in law.

5.

That the assessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 is bad in law.

6.

That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in not furnishing the copy of the reasons recorded u/s. 148(2) of the Act.

7.

That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in not following the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts in making as assessment u/s. 147 of the Act.

8.

That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.16,03,362/- u/s 69A of the Act even though the appellant has declared such money in the return of income.

2. In the course of hearing, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that it is noted by the CIT(A) in para 4 of his order that the appeal was filed by the assessee before CIT(A) after a delay of 131 days and the assessee had filed a letter before CIT(A) requesting for condonation of delay in which it was submitted by the assessee that due to the illness of the assessee’s health, the assessee was not in a position to file appeal in time before the CIT(A). A copy of medical certificate was also enclosed. It was submitted that the said copy of the medical certificate is available on page 1 of the Paper Book in which it is certified by the Doctor that during January to May 2018, the assessee was advised rest and as per the certificate dated 28.06.2018, it was certified by the Doctor that the assessee has recovered from his illness and is fit to work. He submitted under these facts, it should be accepted that the delay in filing appeal before CIT (A) of 131 days should have been condoned by him because the appeal was required to be filed on or before 15.02.2018 but the same was filed on 26.06.2018 with a delay of 131 days. The learned DR for the Revenue supported the order of the CIT(A).

Page 3 of 3 3. I have considered the rival submissions and in view of the facts noted above, I condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage and I make no comment on the merit.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →