Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA
O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) -1, Bangalore dated 31.07.2017 for Assessment Year 2001-02.
The grounds raised
by the assessee are as under. “1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, fact and circumstances of the case.
2. The order passed by the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) – 4 confirming the addition made by the learned AO of Rs.3,90,000/- as unexplained investment is wrong since the appellant has vide his letter dated 21/02/2011 explained the same in detail.
3. The Hon'ble CIT (A), instead of passing the order based on the letter of the appellant dated 21/02/2011 mentioned supra, kept the passing of the order in abeyance for such a long period of over 6 years in contravention of the provisions of Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also erred in rejecting the submissions and arguments of the appellant by stating that "... in the absence of the correct latest address it will not serve any purpose by giving any further opportunities in the matter. Therefore in the absence of the material evidence sought by this office, the appeal is disposed of on the basis of the material available on the record."
4. The Hon'ble CIT (A) ought to have looked into the provisions of Section 250(6A) which states that "(6A) - In every appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of one year from the end of the Financial Year in whichsuch appeal is filed before him under sub-section (1) of Section 246A."
Hence based on the above, the orders of the authorities below shall be set aside on facts and merits.
For the above and other grounds that may be urged and presented at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered.”
This appeal is filed late by the assessee and the delay is of 18 days. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. In the same, it is stated that the order of CIT(A) was received by the assessee on 20.10.2017 and therefore, the appeal against this order was to be filed before the Tribunal on or before 18.12.2017 but the same was filed on 05.01.2018 and therefore, there is delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. Regarding the reasons for this delay, it is submitted that soon after the receipt of this appellate order in October 2017, the assessee could not file the appeal in time because all the AR’s and Chartered Accountants were preoccupied with the tax audit finalization and other time barring scrutiny assessments of their clients. It is submitted that under these facts, this small delay of 18 days should be condoned. The ld. DR of revenue submitted that there is no reasonable cause shown by the assessee regarding this delay of 18 days and therefore, the delay should not be condoned.
I have considered the rival submissions ad considering the facts of the present case, I feel it proper to condone this small delay of 18 days and accordingly, I condone the delay and admit the appeal.
5. Regarding merit, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that it is noted by CIT (A) in the impugned order that appeal was filed on 30.01.2008 and although none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the earlier three dates i.e. 12.11.2008, 12.01.2011 and 01.02.2011, the appeal was again fixed for hearing on 21.02.2011 and the ld. AR of assessee appeared on that date and filed two pages note dated 21.02.2011 and the case was adjourned to 16.03.2011. He submitted that on 16.03.2011, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but the final notice of hearing sent by CIT(A) for hearing on 24.07.2017 was not served on the assessee and this is noted by CIT(A) also that the notice has come back unserved by the postal department saying that the assessee is not found. He submitted that it is an admitted fact that the notice of hearing was not served but the order of CIT (A) was duly served on the assessee on the same address. He submitted that under these facts, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).
6. I have considered the rival submissions. Considering the facts of the present case, I feel it proper that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication is called for on merit of the case at this stage. Hence, I do not make any comment on the merit of the case.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.