Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an assessment order for AY 2010-11. An appeal was initially filed manually before the CIT(A), along with additional evidence and a condonation of delay petition. Upon migration to the faceless regime, the NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine as time-barred, reportedly without considering these physical submissions.
Held
The Tribunal ruled that the NFAC erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the manual submissions and the condonation of delay petition. The case was remanded back to the NFAC with directions to consider the condonation of delay afresh and then adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing adequate opportunities.
Key Issues
Whether the NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without considering the assessee's manual submissions and condonation of delay petition filed with the erstwhile CIT(A).
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 263, 249
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
Assessment Year : 2010-11 Lalji Purushottam Dabhoyya 123/1, Hill View Co-op. Hsg. Soc., Altinho, Panaji, Tiswadi-Goa. PAN:ABAPD1169Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Panaji. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr RK Pikale [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Ms Deepali Kalbandhe [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 13/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The assessee by the present appeal impugns DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067636213(1) dt. 14/08/2024 passed u/s 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereafter] by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’ hereafter] which in turn arisen out of order of assessment dt. 17/08/2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act for assessment year 2010-11 [‘AY’ hereafter] by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Panaji, Goa. [‘Ld. AO’ hereafter].
ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 5
Lalji Purushottam Dabhoyya Vs ITO AY 2010-11 2. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. AR Mr Pikale inviting our attention to paper book submitted that, challenging the assessment the assessee filed an appeal physically before jurisdictional Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-1, Panaji [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereafter] on 10/03/2017 and the same was admitted vide Appeal No. ‘CIT(A)-Panaji-1/10529/16- 17’. In relation to such pending appeal the assessee filed certain additional evidences on 18/06/2018 and 03/07/2018 which were confronted for verification to Ld. AO & remand report was called therefore. Subsequent to migration of appeal to faceless regime the pending appeal of the assessee was assigned to the Ld. NFAC who dismissed the appeal in-limine as barred by limitation. While dismissing said appeal of the assessee the Ld. NFAC however did not take into account all the evidences & condonation petition filed by the assessee in physical/manual mode. Therefore, the assessee seeks to set- aside the impugned order for remand with a direction to deal therewith a fresh.
ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 5
Lalji Purushottam Dabhoyya Vs ITO AY 2010-11 3. Per contra the Ld. DR Ms Kalbandhe without disputing the former facts, has contended that, under faceless regime the appellant did neither respond to any of the notices served to it nor had brought to the notice of Ld. NFAC that in his case physical submissions on earlier occasions were made before the Ld. CIT(A), Panaji. Consequently the Ld. NFAC had no choice but to proceed on the basis of material available before it. Such conscious failure solitarily attributable to appellant’s non-persuasion. May as it be, even in the present second appellate proceedings the assessee is indifferent in failing to place on record before this Tribunal any cogent and convincing evidences in support of his claim for having ‘sufficient reasons’ behind his failure in instituting the appeal u/s 249 of the Act within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of order communicated by the Revenue. In view therefore, the payer of the assessee is meritless thus, deserves to be turned- down and in result instant appeal needs to be dismissed.
ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 5
Lalji Purushottam Dabhoyya Vs ITO AY 2010-11 4. We have heard rival submission; perused the material placed on record in light of rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 and we note that, against the order of assessment dt 17/08/2016 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act the appellant filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A) in form no 35 manually, accompanying therewith copy of (a)assessment order (b) statement of facts, (c) grounds of appeal & (d) fees challan etc. Upon their receipt the jurisdictional Ld. CIT(A), Panaji registered the same vide ‘Appeal No. CIT(A)-Panaji-1/10529/16-17. In pursuance thereof, the appellant adduced certain evidential material based on which assessee was partially heard prior to migration of proceedings to faceless regime. It is also on record that, vide letter dt. 19/01/2017 the appellant sought to condoned delay in instituting said appeal which was endorsed by the Revenue as received on 15/02/2017. On the other hand, on migration of proceedings to faceless regime neither the Revenue nor the appellant could take any step in uploading the erstwhile records/submissions for adjudication. This led to sheer ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 5 confusion and solitary reasons for dismissal of appeal in limine which in result failed determining the rights &liabilities of either party on merits effectively. Having considered these facts in wholesome, in the larger interest of justice we deem it fit to set-aside the impugned order for its remand to the Ld.
NFAC at the stage of its institution u/s 249 of the Act, with a direction to (a) consider a petition for condition of delay a fresh and (b) accordingly adjudicate the issue on merits in accordance with law after according three effective opportunities. Ergo, ordered accordingly. Ground No. 2 of appeal raised in Form no 36 accordingly stands allowed.
In result, the appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in aforestated terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order is pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before.
-S/d- -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Dt: 14th February, 2025. Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. 1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.