Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA
ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon dated 20.03.2015 pertaining to A. Y. 1997-98.
2. The grievance of the assessee read :-
“1. To Condone the delay of Appeal filed, as the petition to condone the delay is filed alongwith the appeal form.
That Assessment Order for the A.Y. 1997-98 under section 144 of the IT Act is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
That the Ld. Assessing Officer did not serve first notice under section 148 & 142 (1) within stipulated period as per section 282 of the I.T. Act. hence the said assessment order is void- ab- initio.
The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and also on facts by making addition of interest income of Rs.6,36,336/- into the income of the appellant, whereas the same pertains to different assessment years.
5. That Ld.AO erred in law and also on facts by making addition of Rs.9,62,796/- into the income of the appellant, as the said amount was received as a compensation award of the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land by HUDA.
That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and also on facts by making addition of Rs.80,000/- by assuming the same as interest on investments.
That the order the assessing authority is liable to be set aside on other grounds too which the appellant craves leaves to take time at the time of hearing of this appeal”.
3. Before me the counsel for the assessee straight away said that though the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was barred by limitation by almost 9 years but at the same time the CIT(A) should have been considerate enough to consider the genuine reasons for the delay in appeal. The counsel drew my attention to the affidavit and pointed out that the assessee being an illiterate person was totally misguided by his then counsel which caused the delay in filing the appeal. It is the say of the counsel that the assessee was medically not fit and further drew my attention to the medical bills of Bali Nursing Home. The Counsel for the assessee pleaded for the restoration of the appeal to the files of the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. The DR strongly opposed this proposition of the counsel.
4. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the contents of the affidavit and have carefully considered the medical history as per the documents of Bali Nursing Home. I am of the considered view that technicalities should not come in the way of justice. In my considered opinion the assessee would not benefit anything by not filing the appeal on time. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play I restore this issues to the files of the CIT(A), the CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits of the case after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.11.2018.