Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order from the NFAC, Delhi. The appeal was filed with a delay of 265 days. The assessee's representative stated that the appeal was filed against an order under section 143(3) but mistakenly mentioned section 154 in Form No. 35. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with notices and defects.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that to meet the principles of natural justice, the appeal should be remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the ITAT Bar Association, Cuttack.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal, filed with a delay and defects in form, should be admitted for hearing and whether to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
143(3), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by ld NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A), Hyderabad- 6/10633/2019-20 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. 3. At the outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 178 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 265 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on two grounds i.e. for non-compliance of notices and defects being not rectified in Form No.35. it was the submission that the appeal was filed before the ld CIT(A) against the order u/s.143(3) of the Act but in Form N o.35, it was by mistake mentioned u/s.154 of the Act. He submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) so that the assessee could rectify the mistake.
In reply, ld Sr DR supported the order of the ld CIT(A). ld Sr DR submitted that the assessee should have been more careful while filing the appeal.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ld ld CIT(A) has issued notices of hearing to the assessee but the same were not complied. It is the submission of the assessee that by mistake, instead of mentioning 143(3, it was mentioned 154. This being so, in order to meet the principles of natural justice, the appeal is remitted back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid with ITAT Bar Association, Cuttack and the receipt of the same be furnished before the ld CIT (A). As regards to the defect in Form No.35, we direct the assessee to file a revised Appeal M<emo in Form No.35 either on the e-filing portal of the Department in physical form in the prescribed manner..
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.