Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's assessment was reopened under Section 147, and an assessment order of Rs. 9,68,910/- was framed under Sections 144 r.w.s. 147 for AY 2018-19. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 50-51 day delay, citing insufficient cause and a misunderstanding regarding participation. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a 4-day delay, attributing it to a lack of clarity on e-filing procedures.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 4-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding sufficient cause due to the CA's misinformation. Considering the CIT(A)'s dismissal was also due to a delay and misunderstanding, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal and CIT(A), and whether the matter should be remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: DR.ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
O R D E R
PER SHRIDINESH MONHAN SINHA, JUDICIALMEMBER :
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [(in short “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 28/11/2023, which in turn assessment order passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 26.05.2023, that the assessee has filed appeal before us. The Ld. CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal of the appellant by observing that appellant fail to furnish sufficiently and Fotdi Pashupalan Mandal Kutchh reasonable cause to delay of 50/51 days. Hence, the appeal is not admitted for hearing as the appeal is barred by limitation, the appeal is dismissed. The assessee has filed appeal before us on 31 January that is late by 4 days.
The assessee has filed affidavit giving the reasons for delay. “Delay in Filling the Appeal: The Charted Accountants, having received all relevant documents, physically approached the office of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Rajkot to file the appeal. However, upon reaching the Tribunal, they were advised that the appeal needed to be filed electronically. As a result, the appeal was filed electronically, which caused a delay of four days.” 4. That Learned AR, submitted that delay for 4 days was due to lack of knowledge whether appeal to be filed manually or electronically. That the Ld. AR further requested that delay of 4 days may kindly condoned.
Learned Sr. DR, has no objection in case of delay condone in filing appeal.
We have heard both the party and perused the record. We note that the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal was due to the fact that CA was miss-directed whether the appeal has to be filed electronically or manually. Further, CA approached the Tribunal for the manually filed the appeal within time. Because of this reason, the assessee should not be penalized. The inaction of the Ld. CA who took 4 days to know about how to file an appeal. We find that there was sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing the appeal has been established by the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay for 4 days and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing.
facts of the case: That no return has filed by the assessee. the case has been reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer has framed assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act on 07.03.2023 of Rs. 9,68,910/-. Fotdi Pashupalan Mandal Kutchh 8. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) against the order of the LD. AO the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on ground of delay 50/51 days with following remarks.
misunderstanding Regarding Participation Before CIT Appeals: furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that the appellant could not participate before the CIT Appeals because of a bona fide belief that the Charted Accountants would respond to the notices issued, as they had been provided with the necessary ID and Password. The Charted Accountants believed that any notices would be sent to the email specified in Form 35, and the appellant would then inform them. This misunderstanding contributed to the inability to participate effectively before the CIT Appeals.
Ld. AR submitted that due to misunderstanding between the appellant and the Ld. CA. The AR of the appellant, the case was not properly represented before Ld. CIT (A). however, the delay application was filed supported by the affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A). That there was a sufficient cause for delay. The AR requested that to kindly condoned the delay. On the contrary, DR has relied on the order to the Ld. CIT(A)