Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / O R D E R
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against the common order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) dated
ITA Nos.1409 to 1411/19 :- 2 -:
28.02.2019 for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012- 2013.
Since, the identical facts and issues are involved in these 2. appeals, we proceed to dispose the same vide this common order.
For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the 3. appeal in 2010-11 are stated herein.
The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 4.
‘’1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the assessee and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play.
For that the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction.
For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him.
For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the reasonable cause shown by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeal.
For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant could have derived no benefit by filing the appeal belatedly and that the same could not have been the intent of the appellant.
For that the capital gains was computed without considering the entire cost of acquisition as claimed by the appellant’’.
ITA Nos.1409 to 1411/19 :- 3 -:
The brief facts of the case are as under: 5.
The appellant is an individual deriving income under the heads ‘’income from salary and income from other sources’’. The return of income for the AY 2010-2011 was filed on 07.09.2010 disclosing total income of �30,12,490/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 07.01.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) accepting the returned income.
Subsequently, when Assessing Officer noticed that capital gains arising on sale of property vide sale deed dated 29.01.2010 was not offered to tax. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 29.03.2017. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed at total income of �41,30,710/- vide order dated 20.09.2017.
6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A), with delay of 591 days and assessee also filed petition praying for condonation of delay citing that he was preoccupied with performing marriage of his daughter, business exigencies etc., The ld. CIT(A) holding that the reasons cited by the assessee does not constitute reasonable cause, therefore choose not to condone the delay, accordingly, dismissed the appeal in limine.
ITA Nos.1409 to 1411/19 :- 4 -:
Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant 7. is in appeal before us in the present appeal. Ld. Authorised Representative contented that ld. CIT(A) ought have condoned the delay in filing the appeal.
On the other hand, ld. ld. Departmental Representative opposed the submissions of the ld. Counsel.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 9. record. Admittedly, the ld. CIT(A) had not condoned the delay holding that reasons cited does not constitute reasonable cause. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held in series of judgments that no appeal should be dismissed in limine are technicalities like delay etc. In the light of this settled position of law, we remand the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the appeal after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant in accordance with law. Hence, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. & 1411/Chny/2019, for Assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-2013.
Since, the facts in the present appeals are identical to the facts in 2010-2011, for the reasons mentioned therein, we partly allow the appeals for ITA Nos.1409 to 1411/19 :- 5 -:
statistical purpose on the above lines indicated in appeal supra. Hence, the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
To summarize the results, the appeals filed by the assessee in 1410 and 1411/CHNY2019 for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-2013 are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on 18th day of September 2019, at Chennai.