MAALDDIN,HARYANA vs. NEAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1622/DEL/2024Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 October 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the appellant genuinely failed to appear before the AO and CIT(A) due to illness, supported by medical records. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, thereby allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an income tax return for AY 2018-19, and the case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte after notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) received no response. The assessee appealed to the Ld. CIT(A) with a 44-day delay condonation request, which was allowed, but the appeal itself was dismissed ex-parte on 09.08.2023. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, seeking condonation of a 182-day delay due to heart illness and non-appearance before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing an appeal before the ITAT and non-appearance before the AO and CIT(A) due to assessee's illness warrants condonation and restoration of the assessment proceedings for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, Adv, Shri Vivek Bansal, Adv. and Sh. Vishal Chechi, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr.DR
Hearing: 23/10/2024Pronounced: 23/10/2024

(ASSESSMENT YEAR-2018-19) Maalddin ITO WARD 2(4), House No.268, GURGAON Tapkan (96), Vs. Tapkan, Mewat-122107 Haryana-122107 PAN:BPBPM8995K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri I.P. Bansal, Adv. Shri Vivek Bansal, Adv. and Sh. Vishal Chechi, Adv. Respondent by Shri Amit Shukla, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 O R D E R

PER VIMAL KUMAR,JM:

1.

The application for Condonation of delay of 182 days in filing appeal and the appeal of the Assessee are against order dated 09.08.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Gurgaon, passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of Assessment Order dated 06.01.2022 of the Assessing Officer(hereinafter referred as Ld. A.O.) for Assessment Year 2018-19. Page1 2ITA No.1619/Del/2024 Maalddin vs. NFAC 2. The appellant has submitted that he has suffering from heart trouble and was in hospital for undergoing angioplasty. Copies of treatment record have been filed. Explanation for Condonation of delay in filing appeal does not smack of malafides as nothing has been gained by the appellant/assessee. Therefore, the application for Condonation of delay in delay of 182 days in filing appeal is condoned.

3.

Brief facts of case are that appellant/assessee filed return of income of Rs. 5,05,160/- for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 19.08.2018. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 22.09.2019 by the ACIT. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to assessee but no response was received. Ld. AO completed assessment proceeding vide order dated 06.01.2022.

4.

The appellant/assessee preferred application for Condonation of delay of 44 days in filing appeal and appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld(CIT(A) allowed application for Condonation of delay of 44 days in filing appeal and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 09/08/2023.

5.

Learned Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that there is delay of 182 days in filing appeal due to illness. Because of illness the appellant could not appear before Page2 the Ld. CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex- 3ITA No.1619/Del/2024 Maalddin vs. NFAC parte. So, the matter may be restored to file of Learned CIT(A) for fresh decision.

6.

Learned Departmental Representative for Revenue submitted that appellant despite notices did not appear before Ld. CIT)A).

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →