Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI JASON P BOAZ & SHRI LALIET KUMAR
O R D E R Per Shri LALIET KUMAR, J.M. :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)-3, Bangalore, dated 22.6.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15
Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under:
2.1 The assessee, filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring the loss of Rs. 3 018 4998/-the assessing officers pass the order after the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the demand notice was also raised on 23/12/2016..
2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated in 21.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2014-15 the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-3 Bangalore. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on limitation as there was a delay of 189 days for presenting the appeal. The commissioner relied upon various decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, more particularly in the Madras Chief Postmaster Gen versus Living Media Ltd.
The assessee, being aggrieved by the dismissal order of CIT (A), Bangalore, dated 22.6.2018 has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on various grounds mention in the FORM 36.
Ground Nos. 3-6 4.1 In these grounds (supra), the assessee contends that the CIT(A) was not justified in disposing off the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the technical grounds. It was contended before us that the assessee had undertaken the services of the good professional for appealing the assessment order and all actions are required to be taken by the chartered accountant. The assessee only came to know about the non-filing of the appeal by the chartered accountant when the demand notice was received in the office of assessee. Thereafter the assessee has taken advice from the counsel and filed the appeal before the commissioner allows with condonation of delay application .The assessee had submitted that the conduct of the assessee is normal and there was no undue delay in filing the appeal before the commissioner after the demand notice came to the notice of the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order of CIT(A) is unjustified. The learned AR was heard and reiterated the submissions as put forth in the statement of facts forming part of the appeal. It is further submitted that the ultimate object of assessment being that the correct income of the assessee be brought to tax. In this context it is prayed by the learned AR that the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside and matter restored to file of CIT(A) for hearing and adjudication on merits.
4.2 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.
4.3.1 We have heard and carefully considered the rival submissions put forth by both learned DR for Revenue and the learned AR of the assessee. A perusal of the impugned order confirms the fact that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for delay in filing the appeal before the commissioner. It is seen that the appeal was filed before CIT(A)-III, Bangalore and the assessee did attended the hearings on various occasions. The assessee had shown the reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before the commissioner within the statutory period as provided by Act and therefore the order of the commissioner dismissing the condonation of delay application is without any merit .In fact it was incumbent upon the commissioner to examine the facts brought on by the assessee in support of not furnishing the appeal within the statutory period and pass reasoned order in this regard. The commissioner without doing the needful had dismissed the appeal is preferred by the assessee merely relying upon some judicial pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is a settled proposition of law that the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various pronouncement is required to follow on the basis of the ratio laid down in the said judgements in the facts of those cases decided by the court and should not be followed as a statute without looking into the facts of the case . Taking into account the facts of the matter and in the interest of substantial justice, we are inclined to concur with this plea of assessee, as it is highly unlikely that the assessee would intentionally or deliberately not prefer the appeal before the CIT(A); as this would cause immense harm to his own interests. Admittedly, the assessee’s appeal has not been disposed off by adjudication on merits of the issues raised before the CIT(A). Since the ultimate aim of the assessment is that only the correct taxes due by the assessee be collected by Revenue, in our view, it is imperative that the assessee’s appeal before the CIT(A) be heard and disposed off on merits.
4.3.2 In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of substantial justice will be well served if the impugned order of the CIT(A) dated 22.6.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15 be set aside. We, therefore, set aside the aforesaid impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh hearings, examination and adjudication of the issues raised by the assessee in the appeal before him. Needless to add, the CIT(A) shall afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to file details/submissions required, which shall be duly considered before deciding the issues. The assessee is also directed to comply with and attend the hearings before the CIT(A). We hold and direct accordingly. Consequently, grounds 3-6 are allowed.
In view of the above, we refrain from commenting on or adjudicating the issues raised on technical issues/merits in grounds at Nos. 1,2 and 7 to 14 of this appeal.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes.