SRI A SUBBANNA,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 353/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 August 2019AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing reasonable cause. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to his file for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an 80-year-old retired individual, filed an appeal before the CIT(A) belatedly due to hospitalization and misplacement of the original demand notice. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine. The appeal before the ITAT was also filed belatedly.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the ITAT should be condoned due to reasonable cause. Whether the CIT(A) should adjudicate the appeal on merits after condonation of delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI B.R BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, Advocate
For Respondent: Dr. P.V Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Hearing: 07.08.2019Pronounced: 07.08.2019

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 26-06-2018 passed by Ld CIT(A), Mysuru and it relates to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal in limine for filing the appeal belatedly before him and also for non-submission of original demand notice.

2.

The Ld A.R submitted that the appeal filed before the Tribunal is also time barred by 49 days. He submitted that the assessee is aged about 80 years and leading a retired life. The present assessment has been made by the AO assessing the income arising on entering a Joint Development Agreement in the year of entering the said agreement, even though the assessee had declared income in some other year. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee, being aged, had misplaced the original notice of demand and hence he could not enclose it with the appeal memo filed before Ld CIT(A). He further submitted that the assessee had been hospitalised and hence there was a delay of around 60 days in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A). The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had also filed a petition seeking condonation of delay before Ld CIT(A) along with medical certificate. Somehow, the same has missed the attention of the Ld CIT(A), which made him to observe that the assessee has not filed any petition. The Ld A.R invited our attention to the copy of petition enclosed along with Form No.35.

3.

The Ld A.R further submitted that the assessee has obtained a certified copy of Notice of demand from the assessing officer and shall be placed before Ld CIT(A) for making good the defect. He further submitted that the appeal could not be filed in time before the Tribunal also on account of confusion at the end of the assessee and also for the reason that the authorised representative of the assessee was tied up with audit works. Accordingly he prayed that the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal was not intentional and accordingly prayed that said delay may be condoned. He further submitted that the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A) may also be condoned and the appeal may be restored to the file of Ld CIT(A).

4.

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee in the petition filed before us, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause in filing the appeals belatedly before the the Tribunal. Accordingly we condone the delay in filing the appeal before us and admit it.

5.

We notice that the assessee has furnished a petition before Ld CIT(A) along with medical certificate, which has escaped the attention of Ld CIT(A). Having regard to the submissions made therein, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in filing appeal belatedly before Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A) also. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has obtained a certified copy of Notice of Demand from the AO accordingly we direct the assessee to furnish before Ld CIT(A) in order to make good the deficiency. We also notice that the Ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits. In view of the decision taken by us in the matter of condonation of delay, the issues urged before him on merits requires examination at his end. Accordingly, subject to removal of defects in the appeal filed before Ld CIT(A), we set aside the order passed by him and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →