Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2013-2014 was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 128 days. The CIT(A) rejected the medical certificate submitted by the assessee's counsel in support of the condonation application.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found the reasons for the 128-day delay before the CIT(A) to be bona fide and condoned the delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the assessee's appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine without condoning a 128-day delay, despite a medical certificate being filed for condonation.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav
Asst.Year 2013-2014 Good Wood Products The Income Tax Officer ID Plot, Andoor, TDS, Kannur. v. Parassinikkadavu Kannur – 670 563. PAN : AAIFG0813H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sureshkumar, CA Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 Date of Hearing : 08.01.2025 O R D E R
Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :
The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 28th May, 2024 and it relates to the assessment year 2013-2014, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024- 25/1065193769(1).
In present matter it is noted that the learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 128 days. The ld.CIT(A) has also discarded the medical certificate filed by the Counsel of the assessee in respect of the condonation application.
. Good Wood Products. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee at the outset contended that the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine.
The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that there is a delay of 128 days before the Ld.CIT(A) for which the partner of the assessee-firm filed an application for condonation of the delay along with a medical certificate explaining the reasons for condonation of delay. We observe that it is a case of ordinate delay of 128 days. Therefore, considering the reasons cited by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A), we are of the view that the reasons are bona-fide reasons and hence we condone the delay happened before the Ld. CIT(A). We further direct the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits. Needless to say, the Ld.CIT(A) will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order.