SHRI H.V CHIKKAGARIGA REDDY,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, CHIKKABALLAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2067/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 July 2019AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the assessee's explanation. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 7-day delay in filing. The assessee claimed the penalty order was received later than stated in the appeal form, attributing the delay to residing in a remote village.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the appeal adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ B ” BENCH: BANGALORE

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

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri R N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 10.07.2019Pronounced: 10.07.2019

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order Dt.31.5.2018 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Bangalore and it relates to the Asst. Year 2009-10.

2.

The assessee is aggrieved by the learned CIT (Appeals) in dismissing the appeal, in limine.

3.

We hear the parties and perused the material on record. The assessment of the assessee was completed on 28.12.2011 by making an addition of Rs.9.95 lakhs. The Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings and levied a penalty of Rs.2.98 lakhs under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The assessee challenged the penalty order by filing an appeal before the CIT (Appeals). In Form No.35, the date of receipt of penalty order was mentioned as 3.7.2012 and the appeal was filed before the CIT (Appeals) on 9.8.2012 resulting in delay of 7 (seven) days. Since the assessee did not file any condonation petition, the CIT (Appeals) sought explanation from the assessee. The assessee replied that he received penalty order only on 21.7.2012 and the date of receipt was wrongly mentioned in Form No.35. Accordingly, it was submitted that the appeal was filed within the time. Not convinced with the explanation of the assessee, the learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine.

4.

We notice that the assessee has furnished a letter before the CIT (Appeals) stating that the order was received only on 21.7.2012 and hence there was no delay in filing the appeal before him. It was also mentioned that the date of receipt of order was wrongly mentioned in Form No.35. Even if the date

Form No.35 is taken into consideration, there is a delay of seven days only. The assessee has explained that he is residing in a remote village and hence there was a delay in receiving the communication. Considering these facts, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay, if any, before the CIT (Appeals). Since the CIT (Appeals) has not adjudicated on merits, we set aside the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) and restore the matter to him for adjudicating afresh on the grounds raised by the assessee.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2019.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →