Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed three appeals against orders from the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for AY 2016-17. The CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed these appeals as time-barred, citing a delay of 600 days for the quantum appeal and 414 days for two penalty appeals. The assessee attributed the delay to a change in counsel and inability to submit a necessary affidavit to the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted the absence of the affidavit before the CIT(A). Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted all three appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee was directed to file the required affidavit before the CIT(A), who would then consider it and decide the issues afresh in accordance with law.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeals as time-barred, and if the delay in filing, attributed to a change of counsel, could be condoned upon submission of a proper affidavit to the lower appellate authority.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR
, 605 & 606/Del/2024 A.Y.: 2016-17 SHRI RAJIV CHOPRA, DCIT, CIRCLE 67(1), 34/11, PANT NAGAR, VS NEW DELHI JANGPURA EXTENSION, NEW DELHI – 110 014 (PAN: AAEPC7687B) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : S/Sh. Manoj Gupta, CA & Kundan Dwahi, CA Department by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 21.08.2024 Date of pronouncement : 22.08.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :
The Assessee has filed these 03 appeals against the separate Orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17. Although, the assessee has raised several grounds. It is noticed that the appeals were dismissed being time barred by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi viz. for delay of 600 days in filing of quantum appeal and for delay of 414 days in filing of both the penalty appeals.
Against the aforesaid orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, assessee is in appeals before us.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing of all the three appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi was due to change of Counsel. He further submitted that assessee could not submit the necessary affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, hence, he prayed that the said affidavit may be accepted at the level of the Tribunal. Upon careful consideration, we find that assessee has not placed the necessary affidavit before the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the interest of justice will be served if the matter is remitted back to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi in all the aforesaid three appeals of the assessee with the directions to consider the said affidavit of the assessee and decide the issues in dispute afresh, in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly. Furthermore, the Assessee is also directed to file the necessary affidavit before the CIT(A) and thereafter, the CIT(A)/NFAC shall pass an order, as per law. Ld. DR agreed to the above said proposition.
In the result, all the 03 Appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22/08/2024.