R P BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

PDF

ITA 14/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: him as assessee merely needed a copy of assessment order. 5. We are not in agreement with CIT(A). As for filing appeal assessee does not merely require the copy of impugned assessment order but when assessment order was u/s 144 of the Act, assessee certainly needed relevant papers and evidence to be filed in first appeal. If assessee had no access to premises, certainly he was handicapped to file appeal supported with evidence. CIT(A) has thus failed to justify the exercise of discretion to3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee appealed against a CIT(A) order for AY 2017-18, where the CIT(A) had not duly determined the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The assessee claimed a 57-day delay due to premises attachment by their banker, which the CIT(A) rejected, arguing only an assessment order copy was needed.

Held

The Tribunal held that for an appeal, especially under Section 144, access to premises for relevant papers and evidence is crucial, and the CIT(A) failed to justify their discretion. Consequently, the impugned CIT(A) order was quashed. The matter was remanded back to CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's inability to access premises due to attachment.

Sections Cited

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, Adv

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Hearing: 21/03/2024Pronounced: 04/06/2024

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal

Centre (NFAC), Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 15/11/2013 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

Heard and perused the record.

At the time of hearing, it was pointed out at the outset by Ld. AR that NFAC has passed the impugned order without duly determining the question of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.

After appreciating the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) had stretched too far the expression ‘reasonable cause’ while examining the plea of the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Assessee had come with a plea that due to attachment of the premises by his banker there was delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. However, the CIT(A) has not doubted the plea of attachment of premises of assessee but has countered it by alleging that attachment of premises would not have affected the filing of appeal before him as assessee merely needed a copy of assessment order.

5. We are not in agreement with CIT(A). As for filing appeal assessee does not merely require the copy of impugned assessment order but when assessment order was u/s 144 of the Act, assessee certainly needed relevant papers and evidence to be filed in first appeal. If assessee had no access to premises, certainly he was handicapped to file appeal supported with evidence. CIT(A) has thus failed to justify the exercise of discretion to be in accordance with law. The impugned order of the CIT(A), thus, requires to be quashed.