Loading judgment…
Facts
The legal heir of the deceased assessee, a 72-year-old widow residing in the UK, filed an appeal with a delay of 668 days. The appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order which had dismissed two appeals as infructuous: one against an original assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 and another against a reassessment order u/s 143(3)/263. The CIT(A)'s dismissal was based on a prior ITAT order that had set aside the PCIT's revisionary order u/s 263, restoring the matter to the PCIT for fresh consideration.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding no intentional neglect. It held that the appeal against the original assessment order dated 15.12.2016 was still valid and pending adjudication on merits before the CIT(A). However, the appeal against the reassessment order dated 22.12.2019 was deemed infructuous as the underlying PCIT order u/s 263 had been set aside by the ITAT. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the appeal against the original assessment order, ensuring the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Whether an appeal against an original assessment order becomes infructuous due to subsequent revisionary and reassessment orders being set aside. 3. Adjudication on merits of the appeal against the original assessment order.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147, 263, 282
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the legal heir (wife) of deceased Shri Gurmail Dass Siddhar against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, passed u/s 250 of the Act dated 14.06.2022 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward-1, Hoshiarpur, dated 15.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 61. 2 Condonation of Delay: It is pointed out by the Registry that the appeal is barred by 668 (Six Hundred Sixty Eight) days. The appeal has been filed with an application for condonation of delay stating the fact that the appellant is a widow (senior citizen) of 72 years and has been a resident of UK for last five decades. She further stated that the assessment proceedings were initiated against her husband on account of sale of some agricultural land, during F.Y. 2008-09 and due to some disputes in assessment, an appeal was filed before the ld. first appellate authority and since she was residing in the UK it was not possible for her to keep track of the said appeal, and she arrived in India on 14.03.2024, and learnt in the month of May 2024, regarding the ongoing appeal process before the Income Tax authorities in India. 2.1 Thereafter, she contacted the counsel and has managed to file this appeal before the tribunal belated by 668 days. The legal heir has prayed for condonation of the delay, because there was no intentional or wilful default on her part and prayed for admission of the appeal for hearing on merits. 2.2 The ld. DR has no objection.
2.3 We have considered the submission of the appellant and we find that there was no intentional neglect or wilful default on her part in filing this appeal belatedly as evident from her date of entry in India on 14.03.2024, and as such, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits.
There are four grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 but the main grievance of the assessee is that the ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal considering the same to be infructuous on the ground that the Hon’ble Tribunal has set aside the orders passed u/s 263 of the Act, back to the jurisdictional PCIT for fresh consideration.
4. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 15.12.2016 has been challenged in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority on 20.01.2017. 4.1 Meanwhile, the said assessment order was also a subject matter of revision before the jurisdictional PCIT, Jalandhar and vide 263 order dated 23.01.2019 assessment was set aside back to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication in compliance to the 263 order. 4.2 However, said order u/s 263 dated 23.01.2019 was appealed against before the Hon’ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench, and the tribunal vide order dated 13.05.2022 in , has set aside the order u/s 263 and restored the matter back to the ld. PCIT for fresh proceedings in the case. 4.3 Meanwhile, the reassessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 22.12.2019 was also challenged in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority on 05.03.2020. 4.4 Now, the ld. first appellate authority vide order dated 14.06.2022 has dismissed both the appeals pending before him, one instituted on 20.01.2017 (u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and also the appeal filed against the order (u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 instituted on 05.03.2020) as infructuous, by observing as follows:
5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal on the ground that the appeal already pending before the ld. CIT(A) against the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 15.12.2016 has not been touched and is still existing as it is against which, the appeal is still pending before the ld. first appellate authority.
In course of hearing before this Bench, there has not been any representation by the assessee or his counsel against the repeated calls. Only an application of adjournment has been filed.
Considering the issues involved, we do not find any reason to keep this appeal pending and we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing the ld. DR.
We find that the appeal, instituted against the original assessment order dated 15.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is still valid and existing against which the appeal has already been filed before the ld. first appellate authority on 20.01.2017 and the said appeal has not been adjudicated on merits, on the grounds contained in Form 35. 8.1 It is only the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3)/263 dated 22.12.2019 has become infructuous because the order of the ld. PCIT exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 has been set aside by the appellate tribunal, for fresh examination. As such, the subsequent resultant order passed u/s 143(3)/263 does not exist and the connecting appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is infructuous. 8.2 However, the original order dated 15.12.2016 is still intact and the same is pending in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the said appeal for fresh adjudication on merits of the case as per ground of appeal contained in Form 35. 8.3 As such, the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 14.06.2022 is set aside and remanded back to the file of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication of the appeal against the original assessment order filed on 20.01.2017 on merits and the assessee is also directed to file submissions and all documentary evidences and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings.