Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for AYs 2007-08 and 2010-11. The appeal for AY 2007-08 was time-barred by 910 days. The assessee cited the severe illness and subsequent death of their counsel as the reason for the delay and inability to represent the case properly before lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2007-08, considering the explanation provided as sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) due to the inability of the assessee to represent the case properly before the lower authorities. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2007-08 is justifiable, and whether the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer in both appeals warrant fresh assessment.
Sections Cited
43B, 40A(3), 30A(3), 40a(ia), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA “SMC” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG
order : 11.02.2025 ORDER Both the captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders dated 02.08.2021 and 04.12.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AYs) 2007-08 and 2010-11 respectively. Since facts and issue involved in both the appeals are identical hence, the same have been heard together are being disposed of by this common order.
Appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is time barred by 910 days. A separate application for condonation of delay along with affidavit of the assessee has been filed, wherein it has been deposed that Mr. K. K. Singh the then counsel for the assessee was suffering from cancer and very serious neurological issues due to which he could not represent his case properly before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) and due to that .:230 & 231/PAT/2024 Manoj Kumr Singh, AYs : 2007-08 & 2010-11 reason also only there was a delay in filing the appeal on behalf of the assessee as he did not inform in time to the assessee regarding passing of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the aforesaid submissions, in my view, the reason explained by the assessee would constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing the said appeal, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
1. Disallowance u/s. 43B … Rs.7,12,232/- 2. Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) … Rs. 40,792/- 3. Disallowance u/s. 30A(3) … Rs.4,05,141/- 4. Disallowance u/s. 40a(ia) … Rs.4,59,185/- 5. Disallowance of donation … Rs. 51,500/- 6. Additions u/s. 68 …. Rs.8,50,000/- 7. Additions of Bank Interest … Rs. 3,506/- 8. Disallowance of Dep. … Rs. 2,340/- Whereas, the assessee in has disputed the following additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer :
1. Disallowance u/s. 40a(ia) …… Rs.4,71,211/- 2. Disallowance of Dep. …… Rs. 7,125/- As observed above, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that due to illness of his counsel Shri K. K. Singh, who has even expired about one and half years back, the case of the assessee could not be represented properly before the lower authorities. In view of this, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer in both the appeals for assessment afresh on the issues as noted above. It is directed that the assessee will present his case before the Assessing Officer
Page 2 of 3 .:230 & 231/PAT/2024 Manoj Kumr Singh, AYs : 2007-08 & 2010-11 and furnish necessary documents and explanations, thereafter the Assessing Officer will decide the issues in accordance with law. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court. Sd/- [Sanjay Garg] Judicial Member Dated: 11.02.2025 J.Dey (Sr. P.S.)
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. 1. Appellant : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh 2. Respondent : DCIT/ACIT, Circle-5, Patna 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Patna Bench, Patna.