SMT. SMITA MAHINDRA SAMPAT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1833/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 February 2022AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 14-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as it was considered genuine. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 14-day delay in filing. The Assessing Officer had made additions of Rs. 2,14,96,111/- on account of cash deposits and undisclosed investments in immovable property.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits of the case. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, A.R
For Respondent: Shri B.P. Shrivastava, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 14.02.2022Pronounced: 21.02.2022

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under :

“1.1 The order passed u/.s. 250 passed on 25.10.2019 by CIT(A)-5, Abad dismissing the appeal on the ground of failure to explain the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal and thereby confirming the impugned additions of Rs.2,14,96,111/- is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.

1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not intimating the delay in filing the appeal and allowing any opportunity to explain the same. Neither at the time of filing of the appeal nor during the course of hearing of the appeal, the CIT(A) had intimated the appellant about the delay in filing the appeal but for which, she would have furnished explanation along with the written submission given to CIT(A) at the time of hearing on 28.06.2018.

Page 2 of 3 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal on the preliminary ground of failure to explain the delay in filing the appeal and thereby confirming the additions of Rs.2,14,96,111/-.

2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal on the preliminary ground of failure to explain the delay in filing the appeal and thereby confirming the additions of Rs.2,14,96,111/-.

2.3 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the dismissal appeal on the ground of delay of 14 days is contrary to the settled principles relating to condonation.

3.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there was no undisclosed investment of Rs.1,34,11,111/- in immovable property in view of explanation & evidence given as explained in the written submissions furnished during the course of appellate proceedings.”

3.

The assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, house property, business income and income from other sources. The assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2016-17 on 27.01.2017 declaring total income of Rs.6,91,590/-. The Assessing Officer called for cretin details and information. The assessee filed the submissions and the details. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits aggregating to Rs.10,85,000/- in bank account as undisclosed income for want of explanation about source of deposits. The Assessing Officer observed that as per AIR transactions, the assessee made investments in immovable property of Rs.1,34,11,111/- on 28.05.2015 and Rs.70,00,000/- on 30.11.2015, thus aggregating to Rs.2,04,11,111/- but did not furnish any evidence/details relating to the said investments and thus the Assessing Officer treated the same as undisclosed investments and made addition.

4.

Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that there was delay of 14 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the assessee was not properly informed about the provisions relating to filing of appeal against the Assessment Order. The ld. A.R. further submitted that since the assessee’s A.R. who was representing the appeal before the CIT(A) furnished submissions on merits, the CIT(A) should have taken cognisance of the Page 3 of 3 merits of the case as well. The ld. AR submitted that at no date of hearing the issue relating to delay was raised by the CIT(A) and was never confronted to the assessee.

6.

The ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Before the CIT(A) the assessee has explained why there was delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. The delay was genuine as the assessee was not given proper instruction for filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has never dealt with the merits of the case and only dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. In the interest of justice, it is appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and we are remanding back the issue contested by the assessee on merit to the file of CIT(A) for adjudicating the same afresh. Thus, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 21st day of February, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →